ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Are Climate Emergency Actions by the United States Reasonable?

Updated on December 6, 2019
Robert Kernodle profile image

I am a serious amateur who has been independently researching and writing about climate issues since 2009.

Photo compiled by Robert Kernodle symbolizing US climate change emergency actions in question
Photo compiled by Robert Kernodle symbolizing US climate change emergency actions in question

This article encourages readers to make a reasonable examination of facts, to form rational judgments based on these facts, and to take sensible actions grounded in rational judgments based on the facts.

Definition of Reasonable

reasonable - adjective - (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

synonyms: rational, logical, intelligent, wise, levelheaded, practical, realistic, based on good sense, well thought out, well grounded, valid

Keeping this understanding of "reasonable" in mind, consider whether widespread worry about human-caused climate change is justified. Consider whether evidence supports the claim that climate is changing catastrophically. Consider whether current tools that provide future projections of catastrophic climate change really work. Consider whether theoretical ideas underlying worry and future projections are correct.

Do The Facts Provide Evidence of Catastrophic Climate Change?

People who worry about the future of planet Earth frequently cite unusually rising temperatures, accelerating sea level rise, abnormal extreme weather, increased frequency of wildfires or droughts, and dire climate model forecasts.

Real-world data and analyses, however, simply do not justify such claims.

This might come as a shock to those who feel solidly grounded in a greatly publicized popular viewpoint. I would suggest that an even greater shock should arise from realizing that this popular viewpoint rests on shoddy evidence, on shoddy science, and, most importantly, on shoddy journalism that ignores or misrepresents real knowledge, for the sake of feeding readers falsely sensationalized stories.

Photo compiled by Robert G Kernodle showing climate emergency news headlines
Photo compiled by Robert G Kernodle showing climate emergency news headlines

United States Acting Without Careful Consideration?

Despite real-world data and analyses showing that unusual or extreme changes are not happening, much of the United States has pledged time, money, and resources to combat perceived threats to humanity that simply do not stand up to any standard of correct assessment. Twenty-one states, 141 cities and counties, 1361 businesses and investors, 589 institutions of higher learning, and an unlisted number of faith-based organizations support the well-known Paris Agreement.

Based on what is really known, all these people and organizations appear to be gravely mistaken, and their mistakes could harm, rather than help, developed civilization.

US states, cities, and businesses supporting the Paris Agreement
US states, cities, and businesses supporting the Paris Agreement | Source

What Is Really Known

Based on data gathered by various professional organizations dedicated to collecting it, and based on expert analyses carried out in the most logical way:

  • temperatures around the world are not increasing unusually
  • sea level is not rising at an accelerated rate
  • extreme weather is not more frequent and not more severe
  • wildfires and droughts are not more prevalent than in the past
  • climate model projections are practically useless
  • the Paris Agreement accomplishes nothing
  • 100% renewable energy is not feasible.

In sum, there is no climate emergency. There is no climate catastrophe looming. There is no existential threat to the human race because of human-caused climate change. There is no need for policies and technology overhauls aimed at averting a problem that does not exist.

Why so many people think otherwise is a consequence of persuasive rhetoric, founded on exaggerated beliefs and mishandled information, transmitted over a vast communication network of shared experiences unlike any in the history of humanity.

More people are alive now than at any other time. More people are communicating openly with each other about the most poignant, private, personal troubles or fears of their lives. More people are experiencing hardships due to ordinary weather events. More news media than ever before are sensationalizing human struggle.

In other words, the number of people experiencing and communicating the impacts of natural forces has increased. The number (extent, severity) of natural forces themselves has not.

Temperatures Are Not Increasing Unusually

Chart 1. Estimates of global average surface air temperature over 540,000,000 years
Chart 1. Estimates of global average surface air temperature over 540,000,000 years | Source
Chart 2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years
Chart 2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years | Source
Chart 3. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 11,000 years
Chart 3. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 11,000 years | Source

The above three graphs clearly indicate that modern temperatures are well within the range of variation occurring throughout Earth's geological prehistory. Whether we look back five hundred million years, four hundred thousand years, or eleven thousand years, we can see that modern temperatures are doing nothing catastrophically different from what they always have.

Sea Level Rise Is Not Accelerating

Chart 4. Global mean sea level fluctuations for Last 800,000 years
Chart 4. Global mean sea level fluctuations for Last 800,000 years | Source
Chart 5. Global mean sea level fluctuations for last 1,000 years
Chart 5. Global mean sea level fluctuations for last 1,000 years | Source

Similar to temperature, sea level has risen and fallen rhythmically, as long as seas on Earth have existed. In general, there is nothing unusual about sea level rise. Today's sea level rise specifically is not unusual either. More precisely, sea level has been rising at the same rate since, at least, the year 1890 (likely since 1850), well before the height of the industrial revolution popularly (and incorrectly) blamed for causing the modern rise.

The best evidence today shows that fear of accelerating sea level rise is unfounded.

Extreme Weather is Not More Frequent and Not More Severe

Chart 6. Ryan N. Maue PhD graph of global cyclone energy
Chart 6. Ryan N. Maue PhD graph of global cyclone energy | Source
Chart 7. Ryan N. Maue PhD graph of global cyclone frequency
Chart 7. Ryan N. Maue PhD graph of global cyclone frequency | Source

The above two graphs illustrate that an upward trend in tropical cyclones (e.g., hurricanes) does not exist.

There are numerous other graphs illustrating little or no trend in other categories, as well, including wildfires and droughts. Rather than trying to list them all, I will refer readers to a source that collects these graphs in one place.

An informative paper, Kelly MJ (2016), Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 – An Enduring Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice, J Geogr Nat Disast
6: 155. doi:10.4172/2167-0587.1000155, concludes:

The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change.

The key phrase in that quote is "disconnect between real-world data ... and current predictions". In other words, real-world data does not agree with current dire predictions.

Image of MJ Kelly Article on extreme weather
Image of MJ Kelly Article on extreme weather | Source

Wildfires and Droughts are Not More Prevalent than in the Past

Source
Source

Climate Model Projections Are Practically Useless

Chart 8. Comparison of climate model forecasts to reality
Chart 8. Comparison of climate model forecasts to reality | Source

Some people will tirelessly defend climate model projections by crafting all manner of qualifying language to get around the fact that these models are not fit as forecasting tools for policy makers.

If a tool proves wrong in the most critical task where its users apply it, then the mindset of continuing to use the tool amounts to nothing less than self delusion. If self delusion leads to irrational spending of time, energy, and human resources, then it degrades, rather than upgrades, an existing system.

The Paris Agreement Accomplishes Nothing

Chart 9. Bjorn Lomborg graph of Paris Agreement impact
Chart 9. Bjorn Lomborg graph of Paris Agreement impact | Source

Bjorn Lomborg has done an extensive analysis of the effect that the Paris Agreement would produce, if every nation on Earth honored it. His findings, which he has expertly and meticulously defended against critics, are these:

  • If every nation were to fulfill every promise, by year 2030, of the Paris Agreement, then the total calculated global temperature reduction would be an extremely small 0.048 C or 0.086 F by year 2100.
  • If every nation continued to fulfill these promises faithfully, from year 2030 to year 2100, then the entirety of the Paris Agreement would reduce calculated global temperature rise by merely 0.170 C or 0.306 F.

Think about this carefully -- with all dedicated efforts to the Paris Agreement in full force, humans could change the temperature of the entire Earth by only a fraction of a degree. This effect is indistinguishable from zero, which points to great flaws in the reasoning behind this agreement.

100% Renewable Energy Not Feasible

Anyone who believes that renewable-energy can completely replace fossil-fuel will gain greater practical insight by studying even a small part of a free online book-length analysis, titled Roadmap to Nowhere: The Myth of Powering the Nation With Renewable Energy, by Mike Conley and Tim Maloney.

Here are just a few of the issues that Conley and Maloney point out for the United States alone:

Wind and solar gear can last from 10–40 years: about 10 years for offshore wind turbines, 25 years for onshore turbines, and up to 40 years for solar panels. This means that nearly 500,000 giant wind turbines, both onshore and off-, will need a major overhaul before...buildout is even complete.

It also means that 5 years after completion, we'll have to start recycling and replacing the solar panels – all 18 billion square meters' worth. That's billion with a B. A 40-year solar refurbishment schedule would mean the recycling
and replacement of 1.23 million square meters of worn-out panels, every single day, rain or shine – forever.

That's close to China's total daily volume of PV [photovoltaic] panel production. And the only thing all of that mining, fabricating, installing and recycling would do is sustain the solar portion of the 2050 national grid, not expand it.

Sustaining our fleet of wind turbines won't be any easier. With 342,000 onshore and 156,000 offshore, we'll have to initiate a major overhaul on more than 80 giant wind turbines every single day. That's in addition to swapping out all those solar panels.

Now imagine every developed and developing nation on Earth confronting these same issues.

Another useful reference is the paper, Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems, by B.P. Heard, B.W. Brook, T.M.L. Wigley, and C.J.A. Bradshaw, in which the authors state:

We argue that the early exclusion of other forms of technology from plans to de-carbonize the global electricity supply is unsupportable, and arguably reckless.

Exclusion of other forms of technology means trying to use only renewable forms, to the exclusion of all other forms of technology, which include fossil fuel and nuclear. I would go so far as to suggest that the authors' use of the phrase, arguably reckless, could be strengthened to arguably reckless endangerment of civilization as we know it.

Image of paper on 100% renewables by Heard and others
Image of paper on 100% renewables by Heard and others | Source

Conclusion

This article asks the question, Are climate emergency actions by the United States reasonable?

Given the information presented above, I have arrived at an emphatic "no" for the answer. Even more, I suspect that current actions by the various states border on negligence, founded on irresponsibility to research actual facts.

© 2019 Robert Kernodle

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • CD Marshall profile image

      CD Marshall 

      6 weeks ago from USA

      I totally agree that the number is ambiguous. Using NOAA as a proxy, you can see the trend varies, but in other regions outside the US the records increase (more people spotting them/better technology/other)

      Basing it on that it looks very much like a cycle and according to that a decrease in the next few years should happen.

      I leave you two alone now. Scott always a pleasure. Robert you are a gifted writer.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      6 weeks ago

      CD,

      On the Tornado Project's data site, if you choose any one year and look down the list, notice how many EF-0's start showing up in later years, as you go through the years.

      Those high numbers you see, I think, include all the EF-0's.

      ... more people alive, ... more people living in areas to see tornadoes, ... more people reporting tornadoes, ... better technology detecting tornadoes, ... more acute awareness, news reporting, hyping anything and everything that even looks like a tornado...

    • CD Marshall profile image

      CD Marshall 

      6 weeks ago from USA

      I looked over Scott's tornado records and the most tornadoes according to his charts in order of top 3:

      Year Tornadoes

      2004-1817

      2008-1692

      2011-1689

      That's not an increase each year at all it is a variable and may be accredited to better technology and population.

      The strongest tornado trend:

      Year #

      1974-7

      2011-6

      1953-5

      So are there more tornadoes or simply more spotted?

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      6 weeks ago

      Scott,

      You continue to amaze me with your cemented focus on only the time periods that you want to see.

      I represent five more years of data added to NOAA's representation of sixty years of data, in order to extend that chart to the present, for a full view of trends. ... You choose two ten year periods (one near the beginning and one near the end of this record) to compare and make judgments, while giving no consideration to the fifty years in between, where marked upward and downward trends also occurred.

      Then you say that, by adding five more years of data to sixty years of data to complete the picture, I am incorporating some sort of "baseline". There is no baseline. I am doing nothing with any baseline. Those are just years of data added on, just like all the other years on the chart. Years 2015 through 2019 were not there -- I added those. No baseline! I just added years to the already recorded years. Those years had not been recorded, when the chart was made. I extended the chart. No baseline!

      Look at the whole chart, from the left to the right. Look at how it oscillates up and down. No real trend there in all those years. Look at it!

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      6 weeks ago

      Scott, you last commented:

      ["I am sorry, Robert, but a five year span of time when talking about weather events is meaningless and anything using that as a baseline means nothing. For a 5-year time span to be relevant, then the embedded periodicity needs to be about 1/60th of that. In other words, the oscillations must be around monthly and that is not the way the weather works."]

      Now I ask you:

      Why are you talking about FIVE-year spans? I mentioned a FIFTY-year span between two TEN-year spans that you compared. Your comment, thus, is not making sense to me.

      The five-year span that I added was to put your two ten-year spans in proper perspective with the entire trend that you still ignore.

    • CD Marshall profile image

      CD Marshall 

      6 weeks ago from USA

      Tornadoes.

      So and I'd do it myself but I feel pretty lazy right now, I think you need to go by decal average on both sources and and see what you come up.

      Since 2000+ (appears) to be more accurate I would do 2000-2009/2010-2019 and maybe use 1990-99 as an offset to compare the results.

      I'd b interested in seeing the final analyses.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      6 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I am sorry, Robert, but a five year span of time when talking about weather events is meaningless and anything using that as a baseline means nothing. For a 5-year time span to be relevant, then the embedded periodicity needs to be about 1/60th of that. In other words, the oscillations must be around monthly and that is not the way the weather works.

      CD - I don't necessarily disagree with what NOAA says. But my data source is from the Tornado Project which goes beyond using doppler radar coverage, especially for earlier years. They were funded by the National Science Foundation for five years after being funded by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to "fill some huge holes in the national tornado data base."

      They data that goes back to 1680. But continuous, consistent, reliable data begins in 1953.

    • CD Marshall profile image

      CD Marshall 

      6 weeks ago from USA

      "This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency"

      That's just part of it RK. What isn't indicated is that also means in the past more tornadoes went unreported, meaning previous tornadoes would therefore be even higher...

      SO the consensus would be nothing has changed except the amount of people reporting them. That same theory can include typhoons and hurricanes. The only way they were reported in the past was from ship logs or settlements, if those weren't present the storms went unnoticed.

      So for anyone to declare their are more tornadoes now is ambiguous.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      6 weeks ago

      CD,

      Thanks for pointing out the prevalence of EF-0 tornadoes, population increase, and detection technology that would give the APPEARANCE of an increasing trend. But even with an adjustment for possible missing storms, as I understand it, the trend is still indistinguishable from zero by NOAA's account a couple of years ago, which they weaken with statements about confidence in model fantasy land.

    • CD Marshall profile image

      CD Marshall 

      6 weeks ago from USA

      Directly from the NOAA website:

      "EF-0 tornadoes have become more prevalent in the total number of reported tornadoes."

      "With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency."

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      6 weeks ago

      Scott, go to the NOAA website located here:

      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extr...

      Scroll down the page and you will find the trend chart for EF1 and greater for the years 1954-2014, which, when you click on it, you will find the larger, more readable image here:

      https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tor...

      This is the chart that I used as the base on which I drew my additional bars.

      For the tornado numbers EF1 and greater during the years 2014 to 2019, I trusted Wikipedia (for once) to search each of those year's numbers, and those numbers are these:

      Year 2015 . . . EF1+ . . . 487 and, of those, EF3+ . . . 21

      Year 2016 . . . EF1+ . . . 414 and, of those, EF3+ . . . 28

      Year 2017 . . . EF1+ . . . 736 and, of those, EF3+ . . . 15

      Year 2018 . . . EF1+ . . . 486 and, of those, EF3+ . . . 12

      Year 2019 . . . EF1+ . . . 605 and, of those, EF3+ . . . 31

      ... and those numbers are the basis of my estimated bar-height additions to the NOAA years 1954-2014 trend chart, which again is here:

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wjsdok07c6xce8/Tornadoe...

      Now your tornado-project website seems to take things back a bit farther to 1950. I'm not going to go through all that data to confirm what NOAA roughly agrees with during the years for which I used data.

      What you have done is choose a span of ten years at the BIGINNING of the record and compare to a span of ten years at the END of the record, while you IGNORE the fifty year span in between. You happened to choose a span early on, where the trend was lower than the trend in a span fifty years later.

      But look at that 50-year span in between -- the numbers go up and down multiple times all throughout those years. Note particularly the span of years from 1963-1973 and the span of years from 2001-2011 -- those are years of steep rising of the trend, FOLLOWED by falling trends.

      That whole chart is a series of ups and downs that looks pretty consistent throughout the full record. NO long-term trend. In other words, you cherry picked your periods to fulfill your panicked prognostications.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      6 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Sorry, your DropBox chart seems very strange. First, I couldn't verify any of the data from the source. Second, it doesn't agree with my data which comes from http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/custom/256074...

      and Wikipedia for 2018 and 2019

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      6 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "Thirteen more tornadoes each year suggests nothing to me, because I do not have the exact context of your data for examining how you arrive at this figure." - I think you are being obtuse but let me make it simple for you.

      From 1950 to 1959, the average number of annual tornadoes is 491

      From 2010 to 2019, the average number of annual tornadoes is 1,184

      You do the math.

      "Attributing this to global warming is NOT absolutely supported by science, " - EXCEPT it is. Give me a better reason that correlates to the data.

    • CD Marshall profile image

      CD Marshall 

      6 weeks ago from USA

      Great stuff Robert very informative.

      "temperatures around the world are not increasing unusually"

      Indeed in real time over 60% of the planet is 15C or less. 10-20% reaches 27C or higher, last time I checked (today) it was 12% in near-real time.

      Someone just mentioned England has had record warming for the last 10 years and yet it's 5C average right now. Warming means a continuance of increasing temperatures.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      6 weeks ago

      Thirteen more tornadoes each year suggests nothing to me, because I do not have the exact context of your data for examining how you arrive at this figure.

      And you DID say this: ["Because of global warming the number of tornadoes overall is increasing as are EF-0 and EF-1s ..."]

      So, what did I miss?

      Attributing this to global warming is NOT absolutely supported by science, nor by your fabricated perception of a hotter Earth.

      Furthermore, attributing the supposed warming to humans, which is your underlying assumption, is also NOT supported by a true view of the evidence.

      Show me the link where you get your information to arrive at that number 13 ... mmm, how interesting, the unlucky number, 13.

      I see no trend:

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wjsdok07c6xce8/Tornadoe...

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      6 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Exactly what does 13 more tornadoes each year suggest to you? Let's see, didn't I say EF-0 and EF-1 or did you miss that?

      Attributing that to global warming is ABSOLUTELY supported both by the science of a hotter earth and that there is no other reasonable explanation.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      6 weeks ago

      Scott:

      In your comment about tornadoes, you concluded:

      ["So what do we have? Because of global warming the number of tornadoes overall is increasing as are EF-0 and EF-1s, year after year. Stronger tornadoes are holding constant - so far."]

      First, I do not see how you arrive at an overall increase "year after year". QUESTION: Which years exactly are you talking about? -- starting when, and ending when? And what EF ratings exactly are you talking about in your generalization? I need an exact citation of the source of your information (a link), before I can comment in a fully informed manner, with respect to your claim there.

      Second, the part of your claim attributing any increase in tornado numbers to global warming is NOT supported, and so your conclusion is fiction to state it with the certainty that you do. It's just not true. The real world does not show us this. Maybe check out this article:

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      6 weeks ago

      Before switching focus to tornadoes, let's stay with hurricanes a bit longer, Scott. I'll get to your comments about tornadoes in a separate comment.

      Read the verbal gymnastics being done here in this 2019 NOAA article:

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS...

      First, we read that there is a slight trend. Then there isn't. Low to medium confidence that there is. Or either there is or there isn't, depending on which audience we want to appeal to, depending on who prefers the Type I or Type II error treatment.

      NOAA pulls out all stops to try to minimize what the real world is telling them, and they are trying their damnedest to revere models, theory, and statistical kung fu that real world evidence should discount! Amazing. NOAA, champions of data "adjusting", ... do not disappoint ... the climate-worrier/warrior camp, that is.

      Up until about 2017, NOAA was saying this:

      "In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase."

      https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurri...

      Later, farther down in this same article, they stated:

      "However, using the CMIP3 and CMIP5 multi-model climate projections, the hurricane model also projects that the lifetime maximum intensity of Atlantic hurricanes will increase by about 5% during the 21st century in general agreement with previous studies."

      Again, "there is, but there isn't." The data says "no", the models and theory say "yes". And NOAA uses the same fake, calibrated-uncertainty language as the IPCC to demonstrate what its leaders lean towards highlighting -- the models, of course -- those over-hyped educational toys with wired-in best guesses and foregone assumptions that consistently run hot, as far as future projections go.

      Ping pong, anyone?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Tornado data (from NOAA US Tornado Climatology) 1950 - 2019

      All Tornadoes - Slope is 12.9 per year with an R-squared of 0.61. We are currently in a 5-yr "lull" which is still higher than anything prior to 1972. There was also a 10 year "lull" between 1978 and 1988 (which was higher than anything prior to 1956.

      EF-0 Tornadoes - Slope 11.6 tornadoes increase per year with an R-sqaured of 0.69. There is a current 7 year "lull" in increasing EF-0 tornadoes. From 1950 to 1986 there was a steady increase in the number of EF-0's and then an explosion which lasted until 2011.

      Ef-1 Tornadoes - Slope 2.9 tornado increase per year with a low R-squared of 0.35. The reason for the low R-squared is the increase in EF-1 tornadoes stopped between 1977 - 2002 where it remained constant.

      EF-2 through 4 Tornadoes - While these have a negative slopes, they all have terrible R-squareds which means the slope is effectively zero - the number of these types tornadoes are constant year by year.

      So what do we have? Because of global warming the number of tornadoes overall is increasing as are EF-0 and EF-1s, year after year. Stronger tornadoes are holding constant - so far.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      And while I'm thinking about it:

      Given that Earth's atmosphere had a favorable composition with enough O2 but not too much CO2, given that photosynthesis was well in operation for plant growth, and given that enough other life existed to provide food sources, the Earth was habitable for humans probably as far back as 300 million years ago.

      Humans have vast capabilities to adapt to climate extremes that have happened in the past, when our species did finally emerge onto the scene, within the broad temperature range where survival of our kind is possible.

      Given our current technological capabilities, medical knowledge, and so forth, I feel confident that we could weather (literally) similar conditions today, and do so in relative comfort, compared to those who came before us. Heat-and-air conditioning, nutrition, medical care, etc. all would enable us to do this.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Scott, I can tell that he is biased by the style in which he writes. An unbiased style of portraying facts would never read so dramatically.

      If I had written like that for one of my forestry profs, when I was into forestry, he would have put red marks all over my paper.

      As for the source of your hurricane statistics, it's good to know that you have chosen a supposedly reputable source (and I'll trust that it still is on this occasion), but it does not matter -- the main point is that it DOES matter how small the statistical result is.

      What does .02 hurricane look like? (^_^) It makes no more sense to talk about .02 hurricanes than it does to split up the solar flux in those pseudo-scientific energy-budget diagrams that grandly display the most basic error of dividing up flux units as though they were energy units.

      In your hub on global warming, you make the same mountain-out-of-mole-hill (or practically NO hill) maneuver with temperature figures, treating minute anomalies figured for an entire planet as if they were indicators of the actual physics that drive regional climatic phenomena in real time, in real locations.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      For your source, it is the The North atlantic hurricane database, or HURDAT, from the national hurricane center.

      Why is he obviously biased?? How do you know that, have you heard him admit it or do you have insight into his mind?? Or could it be because he offers facts (he provides the source) that disagree with your opinion.

      Keep in mind, the .02 is based on a linear analysis. There isn't enough data yet to determine if it is non-linear yet. BUT, most things in nature are exponential because natural forces are subject to positive feedback and acts like compounding interest. We are just getting going with stronger storms.

      The trend is positive, not negative, not constant, but positive, no matter how small, with a very high degree of confidence.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      OMG Scott,

      First, you refer me to a journalist specializing in "science" writing, obviously biased towards apocalyptic drama, using flowery, dramatic, charged language (very entertaining, for sure) to weave his stories of doom, and you expect me to take you seriously?!

      Then you quote statistical values about hurricanes, from a source(s) that you do not cite, indicating a figure of "0.02 storms per year"! At that rate, it would be fifty years, before even ONE more strong storm occurred! ONE STORM, after fifty years, and THAT's supposed to indicate an increase?!

      As I said in earlier comments, linking to even more charts than appear in my article, the best evidence gives no validity to any increasing trends. One more storm that occurs as an artifact of a statistical calculation does not stand up to even a common-sense assessment -- it is indistinguishable from zero.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Hurricanes since 1850 (when good records began)

      The data used was smoothed using a 20-year moving average.

      - The slope of the linear average of total storms is increasing at a rate of 0.07 storms per year with an R-squared of 0.78

      - The slope of the linear average of Tropical Storms and Depressions is increasing at a rate of 0.05 storms per year with an R-squared of 0.82

      - The slope of the linear average of total Hurricanes is increasing at a rate of 0.02 storms per year with an R-squared of 0.50 (conclusion, the number of total hurricanes is remaining relatively constant)

      - The slope of the linear average of Minor Hurricanes is decreasing at a rate of -0.19 storms per the natural log of each year with an R-squared of 0.09 (conclusion, the number of minor hurricanes is constant or decreasing slightly)

      - The slope of the linear average of Major Hurricanes is increasing at a rate of 0.02 storms per year with an R-squared of 0.92

      CONCLUSION - the strength of Hurricanes, when they happen, is getting stronger as predicted.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "Humans had not evolved in those earlier times, which had nothing to do with temperature in and of itself. "

      While this does directly address the question of the earth having to cool down before humans could evolve, you should find this interesting. Then tell me how humans (or almost anything else) could survive in Africa.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/0...

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Earlier, Scott referenced his Hub, where he cites the 4th National Climate Assessment as his focused source of information: https://hubpages.com/politics/Climate-Change-is-RE...

      Here is my Hub on that same report:

      https://hubpages.com/politics/Fourth-National-Clim...

      ... where I conclude: "The Fourth National Climate Assessment, therefore, falls apart because of erroneous claims alone."

      Scott's hub on this subject, therefore, according to my reading of facts, perpetuates the same erroneous claims, ultimately tied to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Scott, we must have been posting at the same time, because I missed this comment of yours:

      You wrote:

      ["More on Chart 1. You say 'before humans ever came onto the scene, before industrialization ever came onto the scene.'But that is the point, isn't it. Humans could not survive (or come into existence) during those hot periods. It had to cool down enough for human life to evolve. Now we are again exceeding those temperatures, so what to you think the logical outcome of that is?"]

      No, that is NOT the point. Humans survive temperatures that vary greatly from what a mere few degrees of a global average indicate. Humans had not evolved in those earlier times, which had nothing to do with temperature in and of itself. You are confusing developmental biology with climate change now. Stop it. (^_^)

      ["As to the rest, I guess you will have to continue to defy science and mathematics to hold your position."]

      Defy science and mathematics?! -- Please, ... don't be absurd -- I have clearly shown that I am doing no such thing.

      Let me be blunt now in saying that any "defying" is coming from YOUR side, as you pander these apocalyptic claims that cannot stand up to REAL science and math.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Check out the following website for hurricane trends (going back to the 1850's):

      http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index...

      Click through all the metrics, using the drop down menu at the upper left on that site.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Scott,

      I've looked at Chart 1 again, which we seem to be beating to death (a good thing, because persistence breeds understanding).

      Here's what I'm seeing:

      The distance between scale marks on the horizontal axis does not represent the same range of years. Between the 200k mark and the 20k mark, the interval represents 180,000 years, whereas each mark before that represents 200,000 years (before starting to represent millions of years on the far left).

      The marks after the 20k mark then start to represent 5,000 years (moving to the far right). Thus, the chart's scaling for the Holocene is different from the scaling for the Pleistocene, which is visually misleading.

      The twenty-thousand-year portion of the chart representing the Holocene, when scaled the same as the Pleistocene, is a mere sliver, and what first appears as a gradual climb from the last glacial minimum (LGM) to the present is actually a sharp spike, similar to sharp spikes that were higher multiple times in the distant past.

      This is why I say it's too early to tell whether we are headed for another ice age in a few multiple thousands of years. Today's peak looks very similar to other peaks, in the longer (properly scaled) interval over geological prehistory. We might be at the tip of a precipice from which we start to decline slowly, in human terms, (quickly in geological-time terms) into colder times.

      I redrew the chart, with revised scaling for the far-right section, to illustrate all this, and that chart is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qd7u3woqp9133lo/PaleoTem...

      As for your perception that things are getting worse, I just do not see any evidence of this. As I have said, and I'll say again, what has gotten worse is people's perceptions. More people alive, more people experiencing bad weather, more people talking about it, hyping it, more frequent reporting -- so much more talk by so many more people, many who are deeply, emotionally involved with the tragedies is being mistaken for worse climate by irresponsible news media.

      We cannot look just 100 years back, as if all things about observation are equal between then and now. All things are not equal, in this respect.

      My reading of the evidence does NOT support stronger, more rapidly developing hurricanes. I have presented this evidence, and you keep attempting to discount it, which you have not, as I see it.

      As for tornadoes, if I recall correctly, even the IPCC admits that data does not provide anything conclusive about the relationship between current climate and tornadoes. There's just nothing there to support this. The news media jump on it, though, as if there were a strong relationship, thereby fear mongering people further without the proper interpretation of the facts.

      As for heat waves, again recent observations, over the record of human observations and the paleo record do NOT support this. A few life times is not a long enough span of time to ascertain these scary statements that you are making. It's scaremongering 101. It is NOT supported by the most rational overview of the situation.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      More on Chart 1. You say "before humans ever came onto the scene, before industrialization ever came onto the scene."

      But that is the point, isn't it. Humans could not survive (or come into existence) during those hot periods. It had to cool down enough for human life to evolve. Now we are again exceeding those temperatures, so what to you think the logical outcome of that is?

      As to the rest, I guess you will have to continue to defy science and mathematics to hold your position.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Chart 1 - I actually have to agree Looking at a reconstructed chart for the last 2000 years ending with 2016 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period.../media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)

      which includes the Medieval Warm Period, today's temperatures look to be .9 degrees C, (1.62 F) above the midpoint of the reconstructions.

      Where we disagree is the significance of that change and the fact that it is getting worse. In 2018, we are now about 1.1 C above the 1880 - 1900 baseline that is commonly used. It is predicted, using the most current data, that by 2050 we will pass the 2 C threshold and be at least 3.5 C above the baseline by 2100. Those are almost baked in now.

      Already at just the 1.1 C level, we are seeing significantly increased devastation across the world with 100,000s of people dying from heat related causes that otherwise would not have.

      These are just three of many points from my hub which speak to the 1.1 C rise.

      https://hubpages.com/politics/Climate-Change-is-RE...

      So what does it mean to live in a 1.1°C world? Well, you are living in it now. What we are seeing are (say, compared to 100 years ago):

      Hurricanes have become stronger and develop more rapidly; Cat 5 Hurricane Dorian is the most recent example. In 1918, of the named storms, 65% are Tropical Storms, 23% were Cat 1 & 2, and 13% were Cat 3, 4, and 5. While in 2018, those percentages change to 66%, 18%, and 16%, respectively (based on 7 year moving average)

      As warmer oceans lead to more higher volumes of atmospheric water vapor, violent weather has become more frequent. The frequency of tornadoes has increased from 492 tornadoes per year from 1950 - 1959 to 1184 tornadoes per year from 2010 to 2018 - a 241% increase!1

      Covered earlier is the increased frequency of deadly heat waves. From 1900 to 1980, the number of heat waves was flat at about 0.24 heat waves per year. Boy, what a difference a couple of decades make! Between 2000 and 2020, the rate of heat waves has skyrocketed to 2.9 heat waves per year!!! AND, it is growing exponentially.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Scott:

      "Chart 1 - I am not talking about the red dots. I am talking about the 1980 - 2015 temperatures. They clearly show (once you expand the chart) that today's temperatures exceed all those before it until you get to 400,000 years ago."

      Me:

      Oh, okay, I see. But you use the word, "exceed", in an exceedingly exaggerated sense. I expanded the chart, and measured it, pixel by pixel, in my photo editor, and what you are apparently talking about is a very tiny increase that this chart shows to be about 1.4 F greater than the peak of the Holocene-Optimum peak. This chart somewhat disagrees with other sources, apparently, which report that the Holocene-Optimum peak was even higher than today.

      But let's stick with THIS chart, and assume it is up to the task. Using this chart, we can see that today's peak and what the chart shows as the Holocene peak were of less value than values of four separate peaks during the Pleistocene, ... before humans ever came onto the scene, before industrialization ever came onto the scene.

      The first of those Pleistocene peaks occurred around 400,000 years ago (according to the chart). Three other peaks, of even greater value occurred around 300,000 ... 200,000 ... and 100,000 years ago, respectively, with the highest-value peak occurring around the 100,000-year-ago mark. Each of these steep falls and steep climbs were as steep as you seem to believe today's mere 1.4 F steep climb is, but to an extent of 15 F, which is truly exceeding.

      My question is, "So what?-- How does this, in any way, support the idea that humans are causing a mere 1.4 F rise that has occurred numerous times, at the same steepness and to a truely exceeding extent in the distant past?" How is 1.4 F deserving of the word, "exceeding", when 15 F increases occured in fast succession (relatively speaking) numerous times, much earlier in Earth's prehistory?

      Scott:

      "Chart 4 - No, the crap falls on you trying to compare an apple to an orange. Are you saying we are entering another ice age right now? LOLOL. That is as real as the Ukrainians had a deep coordinated attack on your 2016 election."

      Me:

      I do not accept your analogy of comparing an apple to an orange. I made this clear. Your analogy is false -- so, where is the crap falling again? (^_^)

      I think you are smart enough to know that I am NOT suggesting that we are entering another ice age right now. [Not laughing, but smirking, "Seriously?!"] Let's try to keep Russian and Ukrainian fake crises out of this.

      On a geological time scale, we are due for an ice age, but I surely will not see it, and many generations of generations from me will not see it. And that's still a blip on the scale that I was talking about, and the scale you seem averse to considering.

      Scott:

      "Hurricanes - Try harder, there is plenty of reliable data that gets you back to the 1880s, I think. People had eyes back then to and reported on what they saw."

      Me:

      Thanks to you, Scott, I DID try harder, and here's what I discovered -- there's really no way to draw a solid conclusion -- the discussion seems to be quite open -- disagreement seems to be occurring -- it's a statistical kung fu match between the "yes" camp and the "no" camp, and this is NOT a basis at all for thinking anything is settled enough to try to control CO2 in Earth's atmosphere through ridiculous governmental policies founded on certainties that do NOT exist.

      Here's a chart and a document, showing you what I mean:

      https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FvKw1wXEgVw/ULT79vG3FEI...

      http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landseanature...

      People may have had eyes, but they did not have consistent means of objective measurement that we have today, and they did not have the frequency of reporting that we have today. Are you saying that you want to compare eyes and emotional experiences of crises to scientific instrumental measurements and analytical processes? Dare I suggest the apples-and-oranges analogy here that you erroneously tried to suggest to moi?

      In sum, I stand by my article and all its charts.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Chart 1 - I am not talking about the red dots. I am talking about the 1980 - 2015 temperatures. They clearly show (once you expand the chart) that today's temperatures exceed all those before it until you get to 400,000 years ago.

      Chart 2 - "This is an absurd request, because it is not even remotely the premise of ice-core science. " - REALLY? Isn't that what you are claiming? That the Antarctic ice cores are a good proxy for global average temperatures (with appropriate factoring)? If you ARE claiming that, then present the data or studies which show a close direct correlation. If you AREN'T claiming that, then I am back to my original point - Antarctic ice-cores give you the record of temperatures in Antarctica.

      Chart 3 - I will go back and look.

      Chart 4 - No, the crap falls on you trying to compare an apple to an orange. Are you saying we are entering another ice age right now? LOLOL. That is as real as the Ukrainians had a deep coordinated attack on your 2016 election.

      Hurricanes - Try harder, there is plenty of reliable data that gets you back to the 1880s, I think. People had eyes back then to and reported on what they saw.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      James W,

      Glad you finally dropped by. Your alternate assessment of my little expose is a good balance to Scott's insistence of my ineptitude. (^_^)

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Scott,

      Respectfully, I think you misunderstand my Chart 1's author. The zero point on the far right, horizontal axis, is year 2015. The two red dots positioned vertically above the zero point are clearly labeled in red, "2050" for the lower one, and "2100" for the upper one. The chart's creator, at the end of his description, states that these labelled points are derived from IPCC RCP 8.5. Consequently, the chart DOES support my claim. The red dots are not real data -- they are synthetic, projected data produced by unreliable climate models.

      Regarding Chart 2, you ask me to present data that compares global temperatures to Antarctic temperatures for the same date range. This is an absurd request, because it is not even remotely the premise of ice-core science. Rather, the basic premise is that the Antarctic pole of Earth stores records of the effects that the whole atmosphere had on Earth to produce its climate in those ancient times. The pole is a sort of global barometer of the entire climate system. Some of the big players in ice core science say so. Here, I've made you an image of the page in one of their most famous papers: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y5sahrivszw5i3i/IceRecor...

      You can search out the whole article from this information.

      About Chart 3, the description also clearly says, "The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3)." I take that to mean that the GISP ends at 1854, and HadCRUT3 picks it up from there to extend it somewhere near now. Does THAT help?

      What you say about Chart 4 is total crap, Scott. You deny prehistory and say that it has no relevance to the long-term rhythmic patterns of Earth's climate. I suppose the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with what constitutes the present Earth. This is YOUR myopic rule for the scale of human existence, NOT the rule of scientific analysis for the entire extent of Earth through its development and fluid dynamic, cyclic transformations.

      Concerning Chart 5, ... No, Scott, my discussion about scales is like comparing apples to the tree from which they fall, which is a succession of rhythmic growth and decay cycles over a much longer span than a couple of its apples. We ARE talking about this larger time span, because the shorter time span is a PART of it and reflects the behavior of its WHOLE succession.

      What we are NOT talking about is displacement of people -- if we are, then this is a consequence of a natural cycle within this larger whole I just mentioned. And some will disagree with the premise that we are not entering another ice age. It's still too soon to tell -- we are mere humans, after all, still accustomed to speaking in human-lifetime terms, which is the problem in these sorts of discussions about "climate emergency". The emergency is what the people living NOW are experiencing, when bad weather hits, which is what has always happened. More people are living it, talking about it, reporting it, hyping it, dramatizing it, sharing it, communicating it, etc.

      For Chart 6 and 7, yes, I repeat myself, because you are not getting it the first time. There is, to my knowledge, no reliable data to indicate the strength of hurricanes during the early dates of which you speak, other than property damage and lives lost, and perhaps unverified reports, probably given inconsistently, because no standards existed to convey consistent, measured reports. I, therefore, cannot see how you can know the actual power of hurricanes during this era, when I don't think the means to evaluate this objectively even existed then.

    • James A Watkins profile image

      James A Watkins 

      7 weeks ago from Chicago

      Thank you for publishing this excellent and needful article. I enjoyed reading it and appreciate the outstanding graphs that drive home the salient points.

      As you said so well, "popular viewpoint rests on shoddy evidence, on shoddy science, and, most importantly, on shoddy journalism ..."

      I agree with you that "temperatures around the world are not increasing unusually;

      sea level is not rising at an accelerated rate;

      extreme weather is not more frequent and not more severe;

      wildfires and droughts are not more prevalent than in the past;

      climate model projections are practically useless ..."

      Well done. Bravo!

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "The two red dots on Chart 1 are climate-model projections, as stated by the creator of the chart, which readers can" - I have worked with that chart before and in fact use it on my own hubs on the subject. If you read the description, it says the last point on the chart is 2015, four years ago. If you look closely at that point, you will see it exceeds all temperatures up until 400,000 years ago (except for a blip around 200,000 ya). Furtther, it was warmer yet in 2016, but cooled a very small amount in 2017 and 2018 - but still ends up higher than the last 400,000 ya. Consequently, your chart does not support your claim.

      Chart 2 - you said that before. So again. Who are "these scientists"? COMMON sense works against that conclusion, but in any case, don't just say it - PROVE it with some HARD DATA that compares global temperatures and Antarctic temperatures for the same date range.

      Chart 3 - The description says "The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. " - Does that help?

      Chart 4 - You said that before as well and it is still false. In this kind of data analysis (which is what I did for the Air Force for over 20 years) the only relevant time period when measuring current sea level changes is when most variables are relatively constant during the period, e.g. no ice ages. Consequently, you can only legitimately go back to when the effects of the last ice age ended and not 800,000 years ago.

      Chart 5 - Your link is a fair representation. But your discussion about scales are like comparing apples to oranges. Over your 800,000 time scale you have many ice ages with moved the sea level hundreds of feet up and down. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about sea level rises measured in feet where just a few foot rise in levels will displace millions upon millions of people. So the fact an ice age dropped sea level 200 feet or the end of one made it rise the same amount is of no consequence unless the discussion is about entering another ice age - and we are not.

      Chart 6 and 7 - again you repeated yourself. Let me try it this way. Your time scales are like a blind man describing an elephant by feeling its leg. You need to be able to see the whole picture to describe it properly. Also, your link shows WattsUp analyzing a study that used economics to somehow show that hurricanes are getting stronger and more frequent. I can see how they might try to do that will probably read their methodologies to see if I agree or not. That said, and as WattsUp points out, using actually climate data should be the primary method; this study might be useful as corroboration. My analysis using real data agrees with what I have read Climate Scientists are predicting - 1) the number of Atlantic hurricanes will not change much but 2) the strengths will increase.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Giving Scott B the benefit of the doubt, I reconsidered his claim that he had debunked my charts 1 through 7, so let's look at what he said again, and I'll try to do a better job of explaining:

      Scott:

      "Chart 1 - it is the last millimeter on the right with the two red dots shooting skywards that proves temperatures are rising unusually."

      My Response:

      The two red dots on Chart 1 are climate-model projections, as stated by the creator of the chart, which readers can confirm by clicking on the source and reading the explanation. A highly uncertain model projection for temperatures that have not happened yet is not proof of what temperatures are doing now. Scott's claim of "proof", therefore, is false. No debunk here.

      Scott:

      "Chart 2 - That is only Antarctica, you need global temperatures to make a believable point."

      My Response:

      Antarctica ice cores are commonly used to reconstruct atmospheric composition and atmospheric patterns of the distant past that ice core scientists actively put forth as representations of what the whole Earth was undergoing during those ancient times. Hence, I am only relaying information that a whole profession of scientists has been doing for decades. These scientists make these "believable points" everyday -- I am just the messenger. Scott's assertion, then, is not supported. No debunk here.

      Scott:

      "Chart 3 - Your Greenland chart is misleading and even distorting. First, the last temperature reading is 1860, about the time CO2 started accumulating at a rapid rate. Is this chart one of your 'real world data and analysis'?"

      My Response:

      Scott and I seem to be interpreting the source explanation of this graph differently. He understands the graph to end at year 1860, while my understanding is that the graph is extended by modern-era data to make the end point somewhere around present day. Nonetheless, the full explanation of this graph makes it clear that modern warming is a result of emerging from the Little Ice Age, where current warmth is still below previous warm peaks, when CO2 levels were lower than present day. So, yes, this is most assuredly one of my "real world data and analysis". No debunk here.

      Scott:

      "Chart 4 - 800,000 years of sea level rise is, on its face, misleading since the time scale is massively large. It is meaningless other than to deceive."

      My Response:

      "Massively large", yes. This was the intent, to show the massively small perspective of people voicing a "climate emergency". It, therefore, has great meaning, and it, therefore, serves to reveal the true deception of thinking on such small scales. No debunk here.

      Scott:

      "Chart 5 - 1,000 years of sea level rise is much more persuasive and this chart clearly shows that up until 1900, sea level was relatively constant. Only since CO2 started to rapidly rise in the 1850s followed by temperature rise, as the sea level change started on a permanent increase. Today, the ocean is encroaching on many places on earth creating refugees fleeing the rising sea levels. This chart helps prove climate scientists point rather vividly (you should really delete it since it works against your theory.)"

      My Response:

      The vertical axis on Chart 5 is in centimeters, whereas the vertical axis on the chart before it (Chart 4) is in meters. The size of Chart 5 on Chart 4 is less than two pixels long -- I cannott even represent the comparison of the two accuratly on the same page, because it is so small. Here is my best effort at a visual representation of the two: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xtldgus15iofmol/HUB_Clma...

      Not so persuasive now, is it? Chart 5 is a mere tiny wiggle at the top of a grander wiggle on the grander scale of Chart 4. This is what Scott and others fail to see. Hence, no debunk here.

      Scott:

      "Chart 6 & 7 - The time periods are way to short to show any meaningful change. If you do a proper analysis starting back around 1900, you will find that while there isn't a predictable increase in the number of Atlantic tropical storms (which climate scientist aren't predicting, btw) there IS a statistically significant increase in their power when they do happen. Anybody living where hurricanes hit know this all too well!"

      My response:

      If you do a really proper analysis, then you will find that what Scott says here simply is not true. A proper analysis is here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/16/no-hurrican...

      Once again, no debunk.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Scott,

      If I can't read, then you can't think. I addressed all of your points, which proved that you debunked nothing. Read that again, you debunked NOTHING.

      Don't be shallow or willfully irrational.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "I did nothing of the sort. I pointed to clear data that you refuse to acknowledge." - AND YOU KNOW that is not true, either that or you can't read. I addressed your first 7 or so charts and debunked them.

      Don't be obtuse or willfully naive.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Scott B,

      You wrote: ["At this point you presented no verifiable data, just false claims."]

      I did nothing of the sort. I pointed to clear data that you refuse to acknowledge.

      You wrote: ["NOW, I didn't say that, did I? Didn't I say something like a vested interest in the outcome? Please don't add words to what I said."]

      What you said, Scott, was very obscure and not clear at all. You made zero mention of exactly what sort of interests you were referring to. And you still have not clarified what you mean. I have only added words, because you failed to specify with enough of your own words. I took the opportunity to specify exactly what vested interest I have, and that vested interest is showing what a sham alarm over human-caused climate change really is.

      You wrote: ["As to your "professionals". In other forums when their names were mentioned, I provided links to show they were very biased or paid professionals. So, give me a name and chances are high I can find the link between them and some industry with a vested interest in the outcome."]

      Again, Scott, what exactly are you talking about, when you speak of vested interests? You continue to hide behind obscurities, relying on the magic of this phrase, "vested interests" to paint a negative picture, instead of unveiling the mystery of exactly what you mean by using it. The "professionals" that I refer to have a vested interest in revealing the truth. How about you giving me a name endorsing the climate emergency, and chances are high I can find the link between them and some funding agency with a vested interest in the outcome. And THAT vested interest (and outcome) is exactly to maintain a paradigm insuring continued salaries, research grants, publications, reputations and all the surrounding dressings, including political goals, that comprise the industry of human-caused-climate-change alarmism.

      You wrote: ["Those last two red dots are FUTURE MODEL - - WRONG, when you get charts that look at those specific years, say 1880 - 2019, you will see they are skyrocketing."

      Scott, you are confusing two charts. The red dots are on the chart showing the entire geological prehistory of Earth, and the author of that chart specifically states that those two red dots are derived from IPCC RCP8.5. Your incorrect comment was about THAT chart. I don't know why the author of that chart would add a climate model projection at the end of it, since climate model projections, as I later explained in my article, are useless forecasting tools.

      Your use of the word, "skyrocketing", to describe a meager increase in the temperature statistic in such a short time span is also funny. This is typical hype, I hate to tell you. And you focus on a time, when Earth was barely eighty years at coming out of the Little Ice Age. So, of course, the temperatures would be going up from that particular point.

      You are still doing the precise thing that I am trying to inform people to revise -- you are ignoring the longer trend over the geologic period and stubbornly insisting that the basis of evidence is to be found in the shorter term, DWARFED by that longer term, where temperatures have been as high or higher, when humans were not even on the scene.

      You wrote: ["You do know RCP 8.5 is the status quo scenario YOU prefer as the outcome, don't you?"]

      What on Earth are you talking about?! I have absolutely no idea how you arrive at this ridiculous assertion. Maybe clarify it for me. So, my answer is not only "no", but "heck no" ! You are dreaming. You are making stuff up.

      You wrote: ['According to ice-core scientists, Antarctica is a proxy for the whole planet.' - COMMON sense works against that conclusion, but in any case, don't just say it - Prove it with some hard data that compares global temperatures and Antarctic temperatures for the same date range."]

      Ice core science is not common sense, Scott. But it is common practice and common knowledge that ice core records would not be invoked, if they did not serve as proxies for global climate of the past. That's what the whole science is about -- if you want proof, read texts on the basics of ice core science. All of ice core research is based on trust that these methods are correct. They have already been proven as proxies by those who believe in them, publish articles about them, and refer to them in the professional literature.

      It is common knowledge that Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. But if I don't believe this and ask you to prove it, then that would be a ridiculous request, now would it not? Please stop being ridiculous, therefore. You do not "compare" global temperatures and Antarctic temperatures -- that's not even the premise of ice core science. The premise is that the ice of the planet holds information about atmospheric circulation patterns, atmospheric composition, and temperature CHANGES in the region of the sampled ice that indicate what temperature CHANGES of the whole Earth must have been like.

      If you cannot embrace that ice cores are proxies for global temperature CHANGE, then you cannot embrace that ice cores are proxies for global atmospheric CO2 change, and that would wipe out any foundation on which you could claim that CO2 levels today are extraordinarily high (which they are NOT).

      Maybe you can embrace this: The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, and it happened all over the Earth. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zvwgQ0tAj...

      You wrote: ["IF YOU Actually look at the chart and read the accompanying analysis you will find that its "end-date" is 95 years before the "this is now date which is 1955."]

      Scott, I HAVE looked at the chart, and I HAVE read the accompanying analysis, part of which says, "The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the EXTENSION of the longest global temperature record (SINCE 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3)." Note the emphasized words -- this means that the very end of that tiny reddish bar is FROM 1850 until NOW, which is well below the Medieval Warm Period peak.

      Your wrote: ["You ignore the fact that there were many glacial periods during that time span. The ONLY dates that have any meaning is that which begins after the last cold spell was over and the sea level stabilized."

      I ignore nothing. Your statement about the ONLY-dates-that-matter is ludicrous, because it is simply a re-statement of your refusal to consider the larger picture, which is the whole point of showing the graph. Ignoring this, as you and others do, focusing myopically on the small time span that you insist on, is, again, precisely the error in the frame of mind that leads to the false conclusions about a nonexistent climate emergency.

      You wrote: ["GO BACK and look at your chart more closely. If history was going to repeat itself like it has since 1100 you would note that the sea level should have declined by 1950. BUT it didn't, did it? Why, because global warming is well on its way. so, it keeps on climbing and climbing and climbing."]

      Once again, Scott, you appear not to comprehend the scale of geological prehistory, as you insist on considering changes within only a 900 year span or so. To have any expectation of history repeating itself in 900 or so years is a flawed expectation. Any expectations would more logically arise over a span of MULTIPLE THOUSANDS (perhaps millions) of years. The current rate of sea level rise is as it has been SINCE 1890 or before. There has NOT been any acceleration in this rate. Sea level started rising at this rate, BEFORE the "well-on-its-way" global warming you mention. Why, because there are other factors at play.

      Your wrote: [" NO, it is your charts that are ill-informed along with your understanding of data. If you struck out on all of the above, why bother with what follows. In any case, I have provided you proper analysis in this comment."]

      Scott, I have given reasonable responses as to why my charts are WELL INFORMED and how my understanding of data is sound. Consequently, your caddish surmise as to my having "struck out on all of the above" is comical.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "Merely saying repeatedly that my statements are "demonstrably false", when I have presented information to the contrary, does not make it so. In the face of clear evidence, you seem to turn a blind eye or shallow view to it." - At this point you presented no verifiable data, just false claims.

      "Vested interest in the truth is not a bad thing, by the way." - NOW, I didn't say that, did I? Didn't I say something like a vested interest in the outcome? Please don't add words to what I said.

      As to your "professionals". In other forums when their names were mentioned, I provided links to show they were very biased or paid professionals. So, give me a name and chances are high I can find the link between them and some industry with a vested interest in the outcome.

      "WRONG -- Those last two red dots are FUTURE MODEL" - WRONG, when you get charts that look at those specific years, say 1880 - 2019, you will see they are skyrocketing. See https://hubpages.com/education/Science-Debunking-G...

      "RCP8.5, of course, is the IPCC's worst case scenario " - You do know RCP 8.5 is the status quo scenario YOU prefer as the outcome, don't you?

      "WRONG -- According to ice-core scientists, Antarctica is a proxy for the whole planet." - COMMON sense works against that conclusion, but in any case, don't just say it - Prove it with some hard data that compares global temperatures and Antarctic temperatures for the same date range.

      "WHAT? -- 1860 does not even appear on that chart, " - IF YOU Actually look at the chart and read the accompanying analysis you will find that its "end-date" is 95 years before the "this is now date which is 1955.

      "The time scale is massively large to show how massively small your and other's perspectives truly are. " - Before saying that, you should understand the data. You ignore the fact that there were many glacial periods during that time span. The ONLY dates that have any meaning is that which begins after the last cold spell was over and the sea level stabilized.

      "WRONG -- What this chart shows is that, starting at around 1890, sea levels again started to rise steeply. " - GO BACK and look at your chart more closely. If history was going to repeat itself like it has since 1100 you would note that the sea level should have declined by 1950. BUT it didn't, did it? Why, because global warming is well on its way. so, it keeps on climbing and climbing and climbing.

      "Your comments about Chart 6 & 7 are ill informed." - NO, it is your charts that are ill-informed along with your understanding of data.

      If you struck out on all of the above, why bother with what follows. In any case, I have provided you proper analysis in this comment.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Scott, I forgot one last comment of yours:

      "Since the so-called "evidence" you present has been thoroughly debunked, I won't bother with the rest."

      Here you make a claim for which you do not even bother to provide any supporting references, as if readers are expected to take your confident simple statement as THE authoritative fact. This in itself is rather presumptive. At least give some references that I can examine and discuss with you. Otherwise, you are asking readers to place far too much unfounded trust in your words.

      Sources claiming to debunk are predictably subject to debunking themselves. Unless you are willing to engage in specifics, then you are merely posturing with false confidence for my readers, and I ask them not to fall for it.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 weeks ago

      Scott,

      Merely saying repeatedly that my statements are "demonstrably false", when I have presented information to the contrary, does not make it so. In the face of clear evidence, you seem to turn a blind eye or shallow view to it.

      You wrote, "Those so-called "professionals" you refer to can almost always be traced back to supporting industry's with a vested interest in doing nothing about climate change."

      I suppose you have a list of case studies that can prove this ludicrous claim? Vested interest in the truth is not a bad thing, by the way.

      You wrote, "Chart 1 - it is the last millimeter on the right with the two red dots shooting skywards that proves temperatures are rising unusually."

      WRONG -- Those last two red dots are FUTURE MODEL PROJECTIONS. They show nothing about what the temperature is actually doing. The creator of that graph tells us exactly how he derived those two points: "Projected temperatures for 2050 and 2100 from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report's WG1 Summary for Policy Makers (2013)for the RCP8.5 scenario."

      RCP8.5, of course, is the IPCC's worst case scenario -- the one used exclusively by the press to sensationalize and misrepresent the very methods that evolved and qualify the actual uncertainty of that scenario.

      You wrote, "Chart 2 - That is only Antarctica, you need global temperatures to make a believable point."

      WRONG -- According to ice-core scientists, Antarctica is a proxy for the whole planet.

      You wrote, "Chart 3 - Your Greenland chart is misleading and even distorting. First, the last temperature reading is 1860, about the time CO2 started accumulating at a rapid rate. Is this chart one of your 'real world data and analysis'?"

      WHAT? -- 1860 does not even appear on that chart, which dwarfs those small time spans in the greater patterns that testify to Earth's actual climate dynamics.

      You wrote, "Chart 4 - 800,000 years of sea level rise is, on its face, misleading since the time scale is massively large. It is meaningless other than to deceive.

      The time scale is massively large to show how massively small your and other's perspectives truly are. What is meaningless is the small time scale over which you try to perpetuate the idea of a climate crisis.

      You wrote, "Chart 5 ... This chart helps prove climate scientists point rather vividly (you should really delete it since it works against your theory.)"

      WRONG -- What this chart shows is that, starting at around 1890, sea levels again started to rise steeply. Note the year is 1890! The cause CLEARLY was not human industrialization then. The year was 1890! This rate of rise continues today, as it did then, with NO ACCELERATION -- that's the point, and so I should NOT delete it. Please try harder to analyze what I have presented and not misrepresent it.

      Your comments about Chart 6 & 7 are ill informed. You might want to upgrade your understanding with the following information:

      https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurr...

      "Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase."

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "Real-world data and analyses, however, simply do not justify such claims." - Actually, that is demonstrably false and not a reasonable claim.

      "I would suggest that an even greater shock should arise from realizing that this popular viewpoint rests on shoddy evidence, on shoddy science, and, most importantly, on shoddy journalism that ignores or misrepresents real knowledge, for the sake of feeding readers falsely sensationalized stories." - Actually, that is demonstrably false as well.

      "Based on data gathered by various professional organizations dedicated to collecting it, and based on expert analyses carried out in the most logical way:" - This, of course is not true either. The VAST majority of experts agree temperatures are rising at an unusual rate. Those so-called "professionals" you refer to can almost always be traced back to supporting industry's with a vested interest in doing nothing about climate change.

      Each of your bullet points are demonstrably false.

      Chart 1 - it is the last millimeter on the right with the two red dots shooting skywards that proves temperatures are rising unusually.

      Chart 2 - That is only Antarctica, you need global temperatures to make a believable point.

      Chart 3 - Your Greenland chart is misleading and even distorting. First, the last temperature reading is 1860, about the time CO2 started accumulating at a rapid rate. Is this chart one of your "real world data and analysis"?

      Chart 4 - 800,000 years of sea level rise is, on its face, misleading since the time scale is massively large. It is meaningless other than to deceive.

      Chart 5 - 1,000 years of sea level rise is much more persuasive and this chart clearly shows that up until 1900, sea level was relatively constant. Only since CO2 started to rapidly rise in the 1850s followed by temperature rise, as the sea level change started on a permanent increase. Today, the ocean is encroaching on many places on earth creating refugees fleeing the rising sea levels. This chart helps prove climate scientists point rather vividly (you should really delete it since it works against your theory.)

      Chart 6 & 7 - The time periods are way to short to show any meaningful change. If you do a proper analysis starting back around 1900, you will find that while there isn't a predictable increase in the number of Atlantic tropical storms (which climate scientist aren't predicting, btw) there IS a statistically significant increase in their power when they do happen. Anybody living where hurricanes hit know this all too well!

      Since the so-called "evidence" you present has been thoroughly debunked, I won't bother with the rest.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)