Climate change denier trolls out in full force

It all started with a Tweet about baking cookies in the car.

The image was a screenshot from Climate.gov, detailing the slow and fast changes noticeable about our climate relavent to climate warming. Rapid changes include disappearance of glacial ice, while slower changes include aidification by CO2.

Wait, who the heck is Steve? He may have been referring to a deleted response that @genstrongchange had replied to, but is now mysteriously missing from the thread, but that comment was made by “Will.”

Twitter_screenshot
@centralFLBoy comments including a picture showing an upward trend graph

After several checks, we still aren’t sure who Steve is.

Great question!So we googled it. And weirdly enough, only a bunch of non-accredited, civilian-operated, CC-denying sites appeared. But why? What was happening in 1936 to have such high CO2 atmospheric levels? WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT HIDING FROM US LAY PEOPLE ABOUT CO2 THAT ONLY THESE FEW CIVILIANS SEEM TO KNOW ABOUT?

And we stumbled across NoTricksZone.com and an article from 2014.

ntz_steve.PNG

And there’s that name again! Steve! Who is this mystery man? Well, he’s not the author of the article, and he’s not another commenter. So we kept looking, and looking, all the way to the bio of the author of NoTricksZone, whose name is not Steve, but it is the name of the author of three comments left on Pierre Gosselin’s bio.

ntz_steve2

Another “Steve” writes: “I don’t happen to be a stock market expert. Bernie Madoff is. But I still regard myself as smart enough to tell you that you should not trust him, and ought to take his advice with a major grain of salt. How arrogant of me!

No matter how smart the scientists, a correct theory ought to have predictive power, and the predictions of the climate alarmists have not shown that they fully understand the climate. I don’t regard the majority as being like Madoff, but just as I still can critically evaluate the advice of a financial guy like Madoff, I can also critically examine the predictions of climatologists in order to judge their credibility.”

And yet a third says, “I have enjoyed your input at WUWT over the years. I noticed the link for the Scafetta chart vs. HadCrut is broken. Thanks for taking the time to exercise your free speech.”

And yeah, Steve is a pretty common name. But we’re doing the best with that we have, yeah? Three out of 149 comments were left by a Steve, and any or none of these Steve might be the mysterious Steve that Liam and C Osborn were referencing.

But the most intriguing thing remains that the article Pierre wrote about the 1936 CO2 “Crisis” is actually from an Australian newspaper and– HOLY SNAP! In the article, Pierre names a Steve!

ntz_steve3.PNG

What the heck?

1936_2a.gif

The Daily News, out of Perth, Australia included this map in their article about a 1936 catastrophic flood that apparently submerged a quarter of the nation. So we googled that too. And the results were intriguing, because they weren’t about the Virginia-Maryland DC area at all, just Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where three days of rain merged with mountain runoff and caused 24 fatalities. But that’s still not as big as TDN (and STEVE!) claim. Continued searching found a scanned PDF of a document entitled, “The Floods of March 1936,” on usgs.gov.

flood_abstract

TL;DR? Two storms overfilled three rivers, and the comparatively warm nature of these particular storms increased the snow melt rate, so runoff became a bigger issue than it would have been. In this screencap, the highlighted section gives the depth of the water, ten to 30 inches. Altogether, these three events had a fatality of between 150 and 200. But how does this relate to atmospheric CO2 levels that Liam called attention to?

Well, let’s take a look at that graph. For starters, that isn’t a comparison of the actual CO2 levels, it’s only a comparison of the number of CO2 level records. As in, 1936 set the most records. And you know what they say in show biz: Once you go high, it’s hard to go higher. But Mother Nature really likes to make an entrance. It appears that 1936 wasn’t a record high CO2 level, it just had the most recorded highs thus far. So every year after that, fewer records were set, but the records were still being set, meaning CO2 levels have continued to rise. If no records were being set, or we were seeing record lows, that would be different. But, y’know, that graph doesn’t actually specify record highs versus record lows. Where is that graph even sourced?

Well, we can’t find it. Let us know if you do, because searching for “USHCN CO2” just pulls up the same results as our initial search, a lot of unaccredited civilian commentary. However, the top result is a website called CO2science.org, where we found this little note:

ushcn

So we clicked there, and were taken to a study from 2002 called Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature database, from scientists Balling Jr., R.C. and Idso, which records a “spurious warming trend.”

ushcn 2

What was done
The authors examined and compared trends among six different temperature databases for the coterminous United States over the period 1930-2000 and/or 1979-2000.

What was learned
For the period 1930-2000, the RAW or unadjusted USHCN time series revealed a linear cooling of 0.05°C per decade that is statistically significant at the 0.05 level of confidence.  The FILNET USHCN time series, on the other hand – which contains adjustments to the RAW dataset designed to deal with biases believed to be introduced by variations in time of observation, the changeover to the new Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS), station history (including other types of instrument adjustments) and an interpolation scheme for estimating missing data from nearby highly-correlated station records – exhibited an insignificant warming of 0.01°C per decade.

Most interestingly, the difference between the two trends (FILNET-RAW) shows “a nearly monotonic, and highly statistically significant, increase of over 0.05°C per decade.”  With respect to the 1979-2000 period, the authors say that “even at this relatively short time scale, the difference between the RAW and FILNET trends is highly significant (0.0001 level of confidence).”  Over both time periods, they also find that “the trends in the unadjusted temperature records [RAW] are not different from the trends of the independent satellite-based lower-tropospheric temperature record or from the trend of the balloon-based near-surface measurements.”

What it means
In the words of the authors, the adjustments that are being made to the raw USHCN temperature data “are producing a statistically significant, but spurious, warming trend in the USHCN temperature database.”  In fact, they note that “the adjustments to the RAW record result in a significant warming signal in the record that approximates the widely-publicized 0.50°C increase in global temperatures over the past century.”

How much is .05°C? To convert, multiply Celcius by 1.8 (or 9/5) and add 32 to have your Fahrenheit temperature; 1 degree Celcius is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. And if you’re wondering why Celcius and Fahrenheit are so different, it’s because Celcius is scaled for water from freezing to boiling (0-100,) and Fahrenheit is scaled to the human body (0-100) with water boiling at 212F. Anyone in the mid-latitudes can tell you that even small changes in temperature are very noticeable. There are whole ongoing debates about what temperature the AC should be set to (I like 75,) and another degree up or down can really piss off your housemates.

And now, as this article is being written, Liam has responded again with something… confusing.

Liam, please make up your mind. Are the poles warming or not?

So there you have it, folks. There is nothing to worry about, and all us alarmists can go back to our basements to twiddle our thumbs and murmur conspiracy theories about how cleaning up the planet and reducing emissions of harmful greenhouse gases would result in a better planet. By the way, what’s the worst that could happen? I mean, if we do all these things to be a healthier society, reducing toxins, pollution, growing our renewable energy use and decreasing nonrenewable source use, eating better, being kind to the animal kingdom… What’s the worst that could happen if humanity showed a little humanity? And vice verse, what worse reality exists if we don’t? Personally, I’d rather do my best to be a positive force in the environment only to discover that “it was all for nothing,” and then have a nice environment to live in, rather than find out too late that the climate and environment really were in danger all along and now we’re beyond repair. I’d rather have a clean world than a dead one, even if Mother Nature isn’t crying for help, because at least I’ll feel all fuzzy inside with I Did A Good Thing thoughts.

So what’s the truth, anyway? Is our planet experiencing climate change, in positive or negative directions? Why are some people so loud about it and some people vehemently denying it? What does the scientific community say? Why are folks like Liam holding the belief that NOAA and NASA aren’t reliable, or are out-right propaganda? And if there is no global warming trend, then why are things so damn warm right now that Japan had at least 44 heat-related fatalities? The homepage of climate.nasa.gov is a little frightening, especially when one considers that a population divided in belief will be at risk of not making important headway in a safe amount of time, if this whole “ice caps melting” thing turns out to be more than a hoax, or not a hoax… the jury (Liam) is still out on that one.

nasa_co2_1950totoday.PNG

We finally have a chart showing CO2 levels in our atmosphere, and it’s not looking so great. It does show a cyclical rise and fall of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but over thousands of years, before human existence. So even if it’s not “all our fault,” we certainly aren’t helping. And considering that several extinction-level events happened before the dawn of man, it’s worth considering that the almost vertical spike in CO2 in the last century does sort of coincide with the engineering and industrial revolution. Are we going to suffocate ourselves and our planet? Plants consume CO2 to make Oxygen, but at the rate of deforestation we’re maintaining, we won’t have enough plants per human to keep that conversion rolling in the rather near future.

So even if you don’t believe that a buildup of atmospheric CO2 is a big deal, can we at least all agree that we need oxygen to breathe, and we need a healthy environment to make oxygen, and treating our environment like trash is a bad idea?

Looking down at the Earth and seeing smaller ice caps, retreating glaciers, snow that melts sooner, ocean temperature increases, and sea levels rising, and not thinking that we should try to do something about that, is a helluva privileged chair to be sitting in, because climate change won’t affect the wealthy and developed world first. It’s time to check yourself.

Goodnight, y’all.

-Climate Alarmist VL Gaffney

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: