Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

"Surprise! The Great Barrier Reef is Not Dying from Global Warming
Eric Worrall / August 16, 2019

It is tough for scientists to maintain the fiction that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is broken, when the government minister responsible for the reef goes and has a look for herself.

GRAHAM LLOYD

The Great Barrier Reef is not dead, is not dying and is not even on life support, federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley has declared after her first official visit to the World Heritage-listed site.

“Today we saw coral that was struggling but we also saw coral that was coming back, that was growing, that was vibrant,” Ms Ley said.

“I was expecting to see dead areas with a few patches of life,” Ms Ley said.

“I saw the exact opposite to that.”

Ms Ley was also accompanied on the visit by the government’s reef and recycling envoy and local member, Warren Entsch.

He said it was important Ms Ley had not taken the word of scientists or tourism operators but had “put on the gear and gone under the water to see for herself”.

In relation to bleaching and climate change, he said it was not a new phenomenon: “It has been happening for millennia.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/16/surprise-great-barrier-reef-is-not-dying-from-global-warming/
 
"GREAT BARRIER REEF: REPORTS OF ITS DEMISE HAVE BEEN EXAGGERATED, CLAIM LOCALS

Look beyond the headlines and you'll find the Great Barrier Reef still has life in it, says Jenny Peters, who's just back from a visit

Jenny Peters Monday 10 July 2017 10:38

Despite reports to the contrary, the Great Barrier Reef really is not dead yet. Last week, Unesco resolved not to add it to its “endangered” list, notwithstanding fears that it would (and even with surprising additions such as Vienna). And in fact, as travellers who still have not ticked it off their bucket list will be happy to hear, locals on the ground say that there is plenty of life left in the world's largest barrier reef.

That is notwithstanding the back-to-back bleaching events that occurred along the reef in 2016 and 2017, in which the waters that envelope this natural wonder not only overheated but stayed hot through winter, effectively stopping the coral from spawning (which is how it reproduces and thrives). Adding in the effects of Cyclone Debbie, which made landfall in the Whitsunday Islands and at Airlie Beach in March this year, and there is no doubt that the reef has been taking a battering lately."


https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ausandpacific/great-barrier-reef-endangered-demise-exaggerated-locals-claim-australia-queensland-unesco-world-a7827796.html
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
While they acknowledge that some reef systems like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia have suffered tremendously from recent warming events, other reefs seem to be thriving."
Who said that every coral reef, everywhere, had completely died? Or even that the GBR completely died? Nobody says that.

Visit the 100 Island Channel web page and their facebook page, and see what they're really saying. The recommend this article:

https://www.newsdeeply.com/oceans/articles/2017/08/24/coral-triage-scientists-zero-in-on-reefs-with-best-chance-of-survival?fbclid=IwAR1FvmUDKwPxvFSxFDuN3tcFPjkZAFW2xmoEBPU9OCs90Cl1B0yrJfJoLHc

IT SEEMS IT’S nothing but bad news for coral reefs. Unchecked coastal development has poured pollutants, sediments and excess nutrients into coral habitats. Overfishing has altered reef ecosystems, home to one-quarter of the world’s marine species, while the extermination of sharks is removing the reefs’ top predator. Meanwhile, much of the carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere settles into the ocean, increasing its acidity and disproportionately affecting delicate reefs. That CO2, of course, contributes to rising ocean temperatures, which have triggered the unprecedented back-to-back coral bleaching events of 2014–17 that devastated reefs worldwide.
But a group of coral reef specialists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, believes at least some reefs have the potential to survive another major bleaching event. That’s if enough of the right kind of data can be collected on how reefs are changing and local communities can be enlisted to manage their reefs so that they are in optimal health when the next surge in ocean temperatures inevitably occurs.
Their conviction is behind a new project dubbed the 100 Island Challenge, an experiment using cutting-edge imaging technology to survey coral reefs in two and three dimensions.
“Our group is in the minority in that we do have hope that not all reefs are going to be dead in 10 to 20 years,” said Jennifer Smith, coprincipal investigator for the 100 Island Challenge and a professor at Scripps.
In other words: this group of specialists agrees that coral reefs are being hit hard, and they think that some might survive IF "local communities can be enlisted to manage their reefs": that is, based on unprecedented human intervention into systems that have done fine on their own until now. And, investigator Smith admits that most scientists predict that all the reefs will be dead in 10 to 20 years. NOT that all scientists (or anyone) thinks that all coral reefs are dead already.

Smith would be appalled to see her work used to support pollyanna climate denialism.

However, Paul Talbott at Majestic Aquariums in Australia explains why it’s important not to believe the hype.
In the video, Talbott says that the reefs are indeed changing and some are recovering. But he also says:

… in speaking to the boat operators and the divers that work right up the coast, up and down the coast of the GBR, they basically said that during those epic times of bleaching there was definitely reefs, particularly to the north, that's suffered extensive damage; some of them up to 100 percent…

And, he encourages people to donate to coral reef emergency funds. Again, he's the last person who would want to see his observations used to justify complacency.

Published in Frontiers in Marine Science, the research by scientists from Glasgow and Edinburgh universities reconstructs temperature-induced bleaching patterns over 381 years spanning 1620-2001. The findings are at odds with claims that mass coral bleaching is a recent phenomenon due to climate change.
Again, check what the study actually says, rather than relying on summaries written by industry shills. The authors don't question that the bleaching event of 2014-2017 was on an unprecedented scale, nor that things are likely to get worse.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00283/full

...reconstructed increases in bleaching frequency and prevalence, may suggest coral populations are reaching an upper bleaching threshold, a “tipping point” beyond which coral survival is uncertain.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Again, check what the study actually says, rather than relying on summaries written by industry shills. The authors don't question that the bleaching event of 2014-2017 was on an unprecedented scale, nor that things are likely to get worse.
So then, why are identical coral species elsewhere thriving in even warmer waters? If there are multiple factors then warming alone is not the primary factor.

Dr. Soon made several challenges to the premise of CO2 driven acidification. He claims the methodology for making this claim is deceitfully highly flawed and is easily testable, in such as your underground laboratory.

While today is likely the hottest day of the summer for me, this has been an exceptionally comfortable summer that I had otherwise been dreading. I know that there is a difference between weather and climate, but I have to think that any changes in warming climate is beyond human abilities. And, that the elites that have always controlled our institutions, giving only recent lip service to academic freedom, are trying to deflect the public mind from the underlying reality.

Dr. Ridd brought up the issue of the Reproducibility Crisis in Science, and thus how can we trust these institutional scientists, especially the IPCC who will not release their data sets.

In any case, it seems a relatively simple matter for someone to reproduce Happer's claim that the wrong CO2 behavioral numbers are being used. Or have the Russians already done this for us?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So then, why are identical coral species elsewhere thriving in even warmer waters? If there are multiple factors then warming alone is not the primary factor.
Everybody agrees that some coral ecosystems are continuing to thrive, even as others die.

Why would you assume that the species are identical in different locations? There could be subspecies that look identical, but adapted to different temperatures.

Why do you say that the waters are warmer where coral is thriving? In the Australian GBW, it's said that the worst effected areas are at the northern extreme of the reef, which would be closest to the equator, and therefore warmest.

If there are multiple factors (which undoubtedly there are), how does this rule out that warming could be the primary factor? (Other factors could include acidification, sewage outflows, radiation poisoning, agricultural chemical runoffs, ad infinitum.)

Dr. Soon made several challenges to the premise of CO2 driven acidification. He claims the methodology for making this claim is deceitfully highly flawed and is easily testable, in such as your underground laboratory.
You mean his complaint that experimenters are controlling pH independently from CO2 level in their aquariums, by using other chemicals in addition to CO2? What's deceitful about this, when their papers spell out exactly what they're doing, why and how?

Are you questioning whether the CO2 content of the ocean is increasing, and causing pH levels to become more acidic? These are very straightforward observations.

Where is there any basis to question the cause-and-effect relationship between hydrocarbon fuel consumption, and increased CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean?

While today is likely the hottest day of the summer for me, this has been an exceptionally comfortable summer that I had otherwise been dreading. I know that there is a difference between weather and climate, but I have to think that any changes in warming climate is beyond human abilities.
Yes, we have been fortunately blessed with moderate weather on the West Coast this year. Other places on the planet have suffered amazing extremes.

I understand that you have some deep internal bias that MMGW is impossible. I don't understand where this is coming from. Look how the entire face of the planet has been changed by human activity, everywhere you go.

Perhaps it might help if you reflect on the fact that the liar-in-chief, Trump himself, insists that MMGW is a hoax. Why would he be telling us the truth about this, when he lies about virtually everything else?

Dr. Ridd brought up the issue of the Reproducibility Crisis in Science, and thus how can we trust these institutional scientists, especially the IPCC who will not release their data sets.
The "Reproducibility Crisis" is mostly about pharmaceutical companies trying to pass drug trials. Applying this to coral science is grasping at straws. It's not difficult to see which coral reefs are bleaching and dying, and which ones aren't.

If you don't want to trust institutional scientists, there are plenty of non-institutional humans out there making observations about our dying planet.

In any case, it seems a relatively simple matter for someone to reproduce Happer's claim that the wrong CO2 behavioral numbers are being used.
I don't understand what you mean. There is only one planet we're talking about, and we're only running the experiment of burning all the fossil fuels once. What is there about this, that can be reproduced?

Happer's claim is that CO2 does not effect water vapor levels. This seemed pretty unlikely even when Lindzen and Singer were making that argument back in the 1990's. But if there was any credibility to Happer's position then, the data coming in now should make it pretty clear that it's just bogus.

Or have the Russians already done this for us?
Putin is an MMGW skeptic. Typical business person.

You do know that one of the most famous climate alarmists is also Russian? Natalia Shakhova.

 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following video explains why MMGW climate science is all wrong, and so, amazingly Trump is right from time to time. This provides the answers to my just prior observation.

However, Trump is wrong, we're going to need a wall across the Canadian border and make sure the Mexicans do not build one.

Now you admit that Putin is a businessman?

In summary, the MMGW climate scientists have completely ignored the effect of all solar inputs besides one. And thus, they place all blame on human activity.

The show is very interesting in showing the immediate cause and effect relationship of solar activity to hurricane production, no human heating needed.



I don't understand what you mean. There is only one planet we're talking about, and we're only running the experiment of burning all the fossil fuels once. What is there about this, that can be reproduced?
No, Jerry, each model has its own planet, its own instantiation.

We are not running an experiment of anything in real life. The Sun, aka Apollo, Aten, Yahweh is in control.
The "Reproducibility Crisis" is mostly about pharmaceutical companies trying to pass drug trials.
No, the Reproducibility Crisis runs across all the soft sciences, which includes the Climate unScience Cult.
Why do you say that the waters are warmer where coral is thriving? In the Australian GBW, it's said that the worst effected areas are at the northern extreme of the reef, which would be closest to the equator, and therefore warmest.
I'm taking the work of Ridd, who said that there are other areas of the world (not Australia) where the same corals are doing fine in warmer water. Maybe he's lying, but that's not what he or I said.
If there are multiple factors (which undoubtedly there are), how does this rule out that warming could be the primary factor? (Other factors could include acidification, sewage outflows, radiation poisoning, agricultural chemical runoffs, ad infinitum.)
Watch the video. But the Climate Cultists decided to arbitrarily limit the solar imput to their models, and thus blame the unnacounted balance on human activity.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The following video explains why MMGW climate science is all wrong
Still looking for that one perfect video that will vindicate all your prejudices, eh?

Scanning through the transcript, and then looking at some of the comments to the video at You Tube, I agree with the commenter who said that Ben Davidson is delivering a "Gish Gallop".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.[3][4] In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.[5] The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved[6] or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.
And since we are playing the "dueling multi-hour video" game, here's my position. Maybe I'll discuss this in more detail, after you watch this ~2 hour long playlist of Ben Davidson debunks from the "Space Weather" channel.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX99MBYW71KCH0eokT0jeTUzIto0rBe4E
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
That's pretty silly Jerry.

Either the climate scientists are restricting their data sets or not, in the case of volcano forcing, as with the others, such that they can ignore the historical effects of much large events.

Now, maybe Davidson et al. are indeed lying, but they are providing specifics which can be either accepted or challenged. But you're engaging in group ad hominem.

As I just posted on Graham Hancock's new book lecture, he discussed the unwarranted bad science criticism of the KT event effects and the repeat of that over the Clovis issue. As Soon stated, this behavior is not Science. If scientists cannot address criticisms and data, and default to ad hominem, this means they are terrible scientists themselves.

Science used to know that humans cannot fly. Now they say that humans can fly. But they were correct all along. Only airplanes and such mechanisms can fly.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I'm taking the work of Ridd, who said that there are other areas of the world (not Australia) where the same corals are doing fine in warmer water. Maybe he's lying, but that's not what he or I said.
Here is Ridd's paper that got him into trouble with his university.

https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Ridd-P-Chapter-1-from-Climate-Change-The-Facts-2017-IPA.pdf

The paper provides the interesting information that the same species of coral can adapt to different temperature regimes by "choosing" to work with different indwelling symbiont algae. The algae provides nutrients for the coral through the process of photosynthesis.

When the water temperature suddenly changes, the coral expels its symbiont algae in the "bleaching" process. It is a desperate survival strategy on the part of the coral, in hopes that a better adapted symbiont algae can be drawn in from the environment. If no better adapted symbiont is available in the local ecosystem, the coral dies.

The fact that a warm water adapted symbiont algae exists in Thailand, is very little help to a coral in the GBW that is dying because of extraordinarily rapid climate change. Perhaps in this case, there is some hope that humans could intervene by importing an appropriate algae.

No, the Reproducibility Crisis runs across all the soft sciences, which includes the Climate unScience Cult.
Here's the information Ridd provided in his paper, regarding the "reproducibility crisis" in science. Based on the citations he provides, it seems that the literature on this topic is indeed primarily related to the biomedical & pharmaceutical fields (and psychological research, which is also dominated by pharmaceutical interests.) Ridd wrote:

The lack of quality assurance in science has become a hot topic, particularly in medical science. e failure of drug companies to replicate the findings of scientific institutions is just the tip of the iceberg. In the biomedical sciences, many authors have reported the level of irreproducibility at around 50% (Vasilevsky et al. 2013; Hartshorne & Schachner 2012; and Glasziou 2008). More recently, John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine, and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, suggested that as much as 85% of science resources are wasted due to false or exaggerated findings in the literature (Ioannidis 2014). Professor Ioannidis focused on, among other matters, the lack of funding for replication studies, which are so important in the medical area. Indeed, replication of already ‘known’ results is one of the fundamental processes upon which the reliability of science rests, but this is generally seen as mundane and not the way to advance a scientific career. Funding bodies are rarely keen to spend money on such work.
The problem is so acute that the editor of The Lancet, one of medicine’s most important journals, stated that:
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. (Horton 2015)
Similar concerns have also been raised for the psychological sciences (Wagenmakers et al. 2011).

But, here's where Ridd goes wrong (at least in my view):

In contrast to government policy science, research with an industry or medical focus usually includes some proper quality assurance, with good reason. For example, a company hoping to develop a drug from promising university trials will typically need a billion dollars to take it to market. The first step for the company is to check and replicate the original peer-reviewed research. It is of concern that when these checks are done, conclusions from the original work are found to be in error more than half the time (Prinz et al. 2011). is could be disastrous, but at least the checks were made to prevent wasting vast resources.

How many different ways is this wrong? First of all, it may be true that "government policy science" has QA problems, but Ridd doesn't have any sources to quote for that assertion, aside from himself. All his sources are talking about problems with research done with an industry or medical focus. "Promising university trials" are frequently industry funded. And the basic problem is that the pharmaceutical companies want to sell drugs, whether they're effective or not. A "Flagrant Conflict of Interest", as Ridd says.

It's certainly possible that climate researchers also have a "conflict of interest" related to the institutional bias in favor of MMGW, but I've argued that really the institutional bias is to downplay the seriousness of MMGW.

So, does Ridd himself have a "Flagrant Conflict of Interest"? Well, it turns out most of Ridd's research career is related to effects of dredging projects on coral reefs. And, he gets most of his funding from dredging companies. Does anybody see a problem here??

As far as I can find, no scientists have bothered to directly refute Ridd's IPA paper, including its various specific points about the status of coral reefs. But, similar claims are found in a "Viewpoint" published in Marine Pollution Bulletin with Ridd as senior author, entitled "The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science". And, this article did draw a reply from the coral scientists whose work was attacked in Ridd's papers. Schaffelke et al wrote:

Larcombe and Ridd (2018) state that there is little incentive for critical assessment of published works stating that “such critiques have been largely ignored in the subsequent literature”. Given their sincere call to improve quality control processes in science it is interesting that nowhere in their 2018 Viewpoint do Larcombe and Ridd make it clear to readers that many of their criticisms of the nine GBR papers have been raised previously (i.e., Ridd, 2007; Ridd et al., 2011, Ridd et al., 2013a, Ridd et al., 2013b), and have been thoroughly addressed by the original authors (De'ath and Fabricius, 2011; De'ath et al., 2013; Kroon, 2013). To republish previous claims that have been addressed and refuted appears to be selecting information to support their statements and an example of the very issue Larcombe and Ridd (2018) are criticising.

This is serious, folks. Ridd's criticism of coral science has been published before; his criticisms have been rebutted and rebuked; and rather than carrying forward with the debate, Ridd simply pretends that no replies have ever been offered.

Highlights of specific rebuttals contained in Schaffelke et al 2018: regarding the overall decline of the GBR:
De'ath et al. (2012): The 27-year decline (1985–2011) of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes
De'ath et al. (2012) showed a 50% decline in coral cover on the GBR, and quantified the causes for this decline, attributing it to the combined effect of tropical cyclones, outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish and thermal coral bleaching. Larcombe and Ridd (2018) state that the impact of the extreme Tropical Cyclone (TC) Hamish in 2009 “was not mentioned by De'ath et al. (2012)” (p. 458), and that the circumstances leading to the reported decline in coral cover were due to “special environmental conditions” from TC Hamish and TC Yasi in 2011.
In fact, De'ath et al. (2012) identified tropical cyclones as the major cause of coral loss in the GBR in their analysis, which included the detailed path, duration and strength of all 36 cyclones (including TC Hamish and TC Yasi) that affected the GBR during the observation period 1985–2011.
Larcombe and Ridd (2018) also summarised the De'ath et al. (2012)conclusion as “Coral cover will fall to 5%–10% by 2022” (p. 453). This statement is both incomplete and an over-simplification of the De'ath et al. (2012) study: the full sentence from the discussion in De'ath et al. (2012) reads “Without significant changes to the rates of disturbance and coral growth, coral cover in the central and southern regions of the GBR is likely to decline to 5–10% by 2022”. Other sections in the De'ath et al. (2012) publication provide regionally explicit data on the effect sizes of the three forms of disturbance.
Coral cover trends, based on standardised survey methods by the long-term coral monitoring program of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, are now reported annually [1]. The significant decline in coral cover reported in De'ath et al. (2012) was followed by a period of recovery (2012 to 2016), due to an absence of disturbances that had driven the 50% decline, and fast growth rates of one type of corals – tabulate Acropora spp. that dominate early successional reefs in the central and southern GBR. Further significant loss in coral cover was observed in the northern and central GBR in 2016 and 2017 due to extreme temperature stress (Hughes et al., 2017) and a new population outbreak of crown-of-thorns starfish. Greater warming (Brown and Caldeira, 2017) and more extreme weather (Fischer and Knutti, 2015; Wang et al., 2017) are predicted globally. Coral abundance and recovery are expected to be adversely affected under the predicted future regime of chronic pressure and more frequent and severe disturbances (e.g. Cheal et al., 2017; Osborne et al., 2017).

And, regarding calcification rates:
De'ath et al. (2009): Evidence for declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef
De'ath et al. (2009) report a significant 14.2% decline in the rate of calcification in massive Porites corals from 68 reefs spanning the entire GBR between 1990 and 2005. This decline was unprecedented for at least the previous 400 years for which calcification records existed.
Ridd et al. (2013a) pointed out an error in the original data set, as some outer-most bands in some corals were incompletely formed. De'ath et al. (2013) have subsequently corrected the rate of decline, from 14.2% in the 2009 study, to 11.4% [95% CI = (10.4, 12.4)]. This rate of decline is marginally reduced, yet it is still unprecedented. Larcombe and Ridd (2018) repeat the critique of Ridd et al. (2013a), but do not cite the responses and corrections (De'ath et al., 2013; also published in Science9), and continue to ignore the fact that there are is no evidence for ontogenetic changes in Porites growth rates.
We maintain that the initial finding of slowing of coral growth rates, possibly attributable to climate change, are valid and supported by other studies reporting similar responses for several other reef regions around the world, including the Caribbean, SE Asia and the eastern equatorial Pacific (reviewed in Lough and Cantin, 2014). A separate analysis of Porites growth records from seven reefs in the central GBR (D'Olivo et al., 2013) over a longer time period than in De'ath et al. (2009) shows a significant decline in calcification on three inshore reefs, and attributes this decline to river discharges. Calcification on four mid- and outer-shelf reefs increased over six decades, but decreased from 1990 to 2008 on midshelf reefs, which D'Olivo et al. (2013) interpret as an indication of recovery from a coral bleaching event in 1998. A subsequent study demonstrated how coral bleaching associated with major thermal stress events on the GBR suppressed coral calcification for four years, followed by recovery (Cantin and Lough, 2014) thus providing a mechanism of action to support the observed decreases.
All of this is very complex. But I don't see that Ridd is successfully challenging the basic narrative that the coral reefs are in an advanced state of decline.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
That's pretty silly Jerry.
I don't see what's so silly about it. I'm asking you to do your own research. Why should I have to answer Davidson in great detail, when the work has already been done? Go watch the "Space Weather" playlist, review the arguments pro and con, and tell us what you find out. (The vlogger is anonymous, but claims to have a 30-year scientific career in the field. I watched a random sampling, and found that he seems very knowledgeable, and considers that Davidson is not.)
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Catching up on loose ends:

Now you admit that Putin is a businessman?
Putin runs Russia as if his slogan were "The business of Russia, is business." He's like the Calvin Coolidge of our time.

In summary, the MMGW climate scientists have completely ignored the effect of all solar inputs besides one.
The insinuation that this is some new insight on Davidson's part, or that solar inputs have been swept under the rug, is belied by this 2009 Scientific American article:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/

Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.
Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc., who has tracked sunspot intensities from different spots around the globe dating back four centuries, also concludes that such solar disturbances have little or no impact on global warming. Nevertheless, he adds, most up-to-date climate models—including those used by the United Nations’ prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—incorporate the effects of the sun’s variable degree of brightness in their overall calculations.

Now, this does agree that the IPCC models only use one solar variable as an input, instead of using multiple parameters. But it's because climate scientists have considered and rejected using those other parameters, and not because they're being willfully oblivious.

I've now sat through the new Davidson video linked above. I've made an honest effort to understand what he's saying, but I didn't even see anything that I could identify as a coherent theory as to how these solar effects could be causing the abrupt climate change we're currently experiencing. So, I'm at a loss as to what I'm supposed to argue against.

At 12:18, Davidson shows a graph of 11,000 years of sunspot activity, which shows an alarming hockey stick upturn starting around 1850. But, I don't understand why this upwards trend of sunspot activity is supposed to cause global warming. Also, checking Wikipedia, I found a less severely averaged version of the sunspot activity graph. This shows a peak about 1950, and a downward trend since then. So if there's some cause and effect relationship between this and global temperature, it's very slow and indirect.




I've argued that really the institutional bias is to downplay the seriousness of MMGW.
Here's a case in point. The blogger Robin Westenra noticed that the graphics produced by NSAIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) depicting the progressive melting of sea ice in the Arctic, don't accurately represent the break-up of the ice as shown by NASA satellite photos. Westenra suggests that perhaps NSAIDC is cooking the books.

Blog article:

http://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-arctic-melt-has-slowed-down-really.html

Or, video:

 
Here is a very long article published on a peer reviewed platform that dispels any doubt about the possibility of see level rising from ice melting, even in the case execptional ice melting was true (which I don't believe).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987118300446

"Why would sea-level rise for global warming and polar ice-melt?

Highlights


Global warming and polar ice-melt not contribute to sea level rise.

Melting of huge volume of floating sea-ice around polar region cool ocean-water preventing thermal expansion.

Polar ice melting re-occupy same volume of the displaced water causing no sea level rise.

Gravitational attraction of the earth plays a dominant role against sea level rise.

Melting of land ice in the polar region allow crust to rebound elastically for isostatic balancing through uplift should cause sea level to drop relatively.

6. Conclusion

Geophysical shape of the earth is the fundamental component of the global sea level distribution. Global warming and ice-melt, although a reality, would not contribute to sea-level rise. Gravitational attraction of the earth plays a dominant role against sea level rise. As a result of low gravity attraction in the region of equatorial bulge and high gravity attraction in the region of polar flattening, melt-water would not move from polar region to equatorial region. Further, melt-water of the floating ice-sheets will reoccupy same volume of the displaced water by floating ice-sheets causing no sea-level rise. Arctic Ocean in the north is surrounded by the land mass thus can restrict the movement of the floating ice, while, Antarctic in the south is surrounded by open ocean thus floating ice can freely move to the north. Melting of huge volume of floating sea-ice around Antarctica not only can reoccupy volume of the displaced water but also can cool ocean-water in the region of equatorial bulge thus can prevent thermal expansion of the ocean water. Melting of land ice in both the polar region can substantially reduce load on the crust allowing crust to rebound elastically for isostatic balancing through uplift causing sea level to drop relatively. Palaeo-sea level rise and fall in macro-scale are related to marine transgression and regression in addition to other geologic events like converging and diverging plate tectonics, orogenic uplift of the collision margin, basin subsidence of the extensional crust, volcanic activities in the oceanic region, prograding delta buildup, ocean floor height change and sub-marine mass avalanche."
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Here is a very long article published on a peer reviewed platform that dispels any doubt about the possibility of see level rising from ice melting, even in the case execptional ice melting was true (which I don't believe).
Strange that you think one peer reviewed paper would "dispel any doubt", in spite of the many other peer reviewed papers stating the opposite. And I'm also mystified as to why you would present this paper so positively, even though it clearly states that both global warming and ice-melt are realities.

The paper might be a valuable contribution to the discussion of sea-level rise projections. It provides some valuable information about definitions of sea level, given the ellipsoidal rather than precisely spheroidal shape of the earth. It points out that a number of factors effect sea level, including elastic rebound, and cooling of ocean waters by melting sea-ice. And the point is well taken, that ancient sea levels were effected by plate tectonics and other geologic factors, as well as climate changes.

But the conclusions seem to represent a lot of hand-waving, rather than the results of any modeling or computations of the effects of the various factors. Also, I noticed some extremely strange statements, such as the view that water melting from the ice mass over Greenland could be trapped by the land masses of Europe and America, and prevented from dispersing southward to raise ocean levels worldwide. Overall, I didn't find the paper very convincing.

Regarding elastic rebound, I would be very surprised if this effect isn't accounted for by other authors who have made projections about sea level rise.
 
Top