Climate Change Abroad
I did a column this week for TAP about the devastating impact America’s climate pollution is having abroad:
The Carteret Islands, a somewhat outlying atoll off the coast of Papua New Guinea, don’t normally attract much attention. But it’s a shame more people weren’t paying attention in late April when a lone blogger, Dan Box, was on hand to witness the beginning of the islands’ evacuation. It’s a small atoll, you see, and relatively low-lying. Sea levels are rising. Flooding is increasing. And even though the island is still there, it’s no longer habitable: “King tides have washed away their crops and rising sea levels poisoned those that remain with salt,”wrote Box. These days, in other words, sometimes the high tide gets so high it buries the farmland, and even when it doesn’t, the salt permeates the soil. So 2,600 people need to move. [...]
Still, it’s hard to miss the fact that the elite conversation in Washington, D.C., has a distinct air of frivolity about it that attention to events abroad might dispel. If it were announced that the United States of America was planning on dumping a load of poison on the Carteret Islands rendering them uninhabitable, I think even Sen. James Inhof of Oklahoma would be spurred to action. Certainly I doubt that you’d see a Blue Dog member of the House whining that since the poison factory is located in his district, he doesn’t see how we can possibly afford to stop producing the poison. Libertarians wouldn’t be arguing that the pristine logic of the free market grants companies the right to poison other people’s islands.
We’re ultimately going to need better policy than the Waxman-Markey bill to cope with this crisis, but Waxman-Markey would be much much better than the status quo.
93 Responses to “Climate Change Abroad”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 15th, 2009 at 11:34 am
You’re too optimistic. Only a half-century ago, the US intentionally displaced many more people than that from their homes, for reasons as noble as “we want to detonate H-bombs here” and “we think this would be a peachy place for a naval base.” Compared to those episodes, the non-specific and unintended impact of global warming doesn’t really tug at too many heart strings.
To me, the only compelling case against man-made global warming is that we shouldn’t mess with the basic physical conditions of life on our planet…which ought to be a no-brainer. Remarkably, it’s not…but given that sad reality, it’s crazy to think that anyone would be moved by the fate of a few hundred thousand people who live on atolls. They could all be moved into foreclosed properties in Clark and Orange counties, if that’s all it took to counter the impacts of global warming.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Certainly I doubt that you’d see a Blue Dog member of the House whining that since the poison factory is located in his district, he doesn’t see how we can possibly afford to stop producing the poison.
You wish.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:43 am
In before Kim tells us it’s all an elaborate ruse.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Rising sea levels? According to Mr. Kim, we are experiencing global cooling so how can sea levels be rising? Obviously, this a phony news item planted by the international global warming conspiracy. End snark.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Sea levels are rising, it’s true, but not enough to cause the problems in the Carteret Islands. The Carteret Islands are, literally, sinking into the sea (i.e., sinking relative to other land masses). The geology of this is not very well understood, as far as I can tell, but it may very well have nothing to do with climate change.
Unfortunately, making this kind of bogus arguments only gives more ammo to climate-change skeptics.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Are you fucking kidding me? The libertarians on this very board argue that it is not only right, but a downright good thing that we dropped bombs on human beings in Iraq. A few thousand deaths aren’t important to people who value the dollar above everything else.
The only complaint they might have is that there are no brown people there with oil belonging to those libertarians and so both poisoning and bombing is a waste of money.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am
There’s 1600 people on Carteret Islands with a total land mass of less then 150 acres.
Buy the land and islands from them using a Carbon Tax at the rate of $.10 per pound after one year from the US alone would pay them almost $1 million per person, or $88 Million per acre.
Given a rough estimate of developed Real Estate in the Pacific probably goes for about .5-1 Million Per acre, we could maybe even get away with as little as a one cent carbon tax and call it even.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Re Matthew’s comment “Still, it’s hard to miss the fact that the elite conversation in Washington, D.C., has a distinct air of frivolity about it that attention to events abroad might dispel.”
———————
I suspect that frivolity will disappear when SLC and AIPAC eventually rub their two collective brain cells together and ask “Is it [global warming] Good For Israel”?
Even a blind pig finds an acorn eventually.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I can’t wait for kim to explain how the forcing from CO2 is a constant.
The climate septics long ago discovered that they don’t need sensible arguments. They only need to keep talking.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:52 am
To build on my earlier point, here’s a relevant bit from Wikipedia:
To be fair, rising sea levels due to climate change may also have played a role in increase flooding. But given the islands’ geology, it’s far from clear whether that it’s a significant role.
So if Matthew is intellectually honest, he should probably withdraw the column, which (like the islands) is based on unsound foundations.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Speaking of glibertarians, i was just lmao at this : http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/debt_a_writers_life.php
May 15th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Also, while the destruction of the Bikini Atoll was before Sen. James Inhofe’s time, it would not surprise me if he did authorize the use of Nuclear Testing at that location if he were alive at that time, since he has voted no on the NTBT and Yes on Nuclear waste dumping. So that whole poison thing is kind of silly.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Sea levels are rising because global cooling is causing the salt to expand.
Also, I’m smarter than you.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:59 am
cyd,
Can you name for me any islands that were abandoned due to weathering and erosion, as well as isostatic adjustments of the sea floor in the 19th and 20th centuries; ie, before we started seeing ocean levels rise from global warming?
Serious question.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Josh E, 3
& Jeffrey, 9.
And Matt. Oh, please, minimal googling will demonstrate that it is unknown whether the cause is rising sea level or sinking island. Such hysteria. And why so bitter Josh, and Jeffrey? The globe is cooling, for how long even kim doesn’t know. Meanwhile, check out the recent three year stumble in sea level rise, and the coming disappearance of sunspots. Science settled? In a pig’s eye. The politics are pretty clear, though. Wasn’t there supposed to be a re-dedication to the importance of science in this administration? Will Chris Mooney’s next book be ‘The Democrats’s War on Science’?
=======================================
May 15th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Unfortunately, making this kind of bogus arguments only gives more ammo to climate-change skeptics.
I think cyd is right here. If sea level rise were the sole culprit, every atoll of similar elevation in the Pacific would be facing the same fate at the same time.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
SLC, 4. Ooh, sorry I forgot you. Wow, a little skepticism sure seems to be causing you guys a lot of pain. Three mentions in the first few comments. I can’t stand it. And good work, cyd, you beat me to the only relevant points here.
============================================
May 15th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
A little late, kim. We’ve managed to sustain a conversation for almost half an hour now before you swooped in to try to derail it. Not gonna work this time.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
cyd,
Can you name for me any islands that were abandoned due to weathering and erosion, as well as isostatic adjustments of the sea floor in the 19th and 20th centuries; ie, before we started seeing ocean levels rise from global warming?
The North West Hawaii Islands were inhabited in pre-Cook days by the same folks who lived on the main Hawaiian Islands, but were abandoned a few centuries prior to European contact (although their problem was strictly weathering and erosion – and salt encroaching on fresh water supplies, which on most non-mountainous tropical islands, are very limited to begin with – not subduction)
Saltwater incursion in the aquifer will occur anywhere if it’s depleted too quickly; it was starting to happen in Oahu mid-century prior to the Board of Water Supply getting hold of things (and the sugar plantations went away, which were tapping the mountains like a giant keg)
May 15th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Ah the sweet optimism of youth. In the runup to the Clean Water Act the Inhofe’s of the day were insisting on the right of chemical plants to dump untreated effluent into rivers, even those used for drinking water, with the result that periodically rivers would catch on fire.
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642
The Birchers and other wingnuts considered the first Earth Day to be a communist plot to destroy America. Ayn Rand in her last days delivered a paean to smokestacks. And they are still at it.
Against Environmentalism
If the Cateret Islands sinking into the sea is just the price for the freedom to buy unlimited industrialist produced goods. People like Inhofe believe in Progress with a capital P and equate it with GDP and to hell with issues around inequality, sustainability, and externalities.
When James Watts was running Interior for Ronnie Reagan he famously said that there was no need to preserve the resources of the mountain West, we should just take what we want when we want because the Rapture was just around the corner anyway. The notion that you can shame these people by invoking devastation somewhere outside their neighborhood is pretty naive.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
The Carteret Islands have some unique geological issues that are causing them to sink more quickly than other nearby islands, and thus their problems are not exclusively limited to global sea level rise. Some additional context would be useful. Nonetheless, global sea levels are rising, so I fail to see why this is a “bogus argument” that “gives ammo to skeptics”. This is a glimpse of the future.
“Libertarians wouldn’t be arguing that the pristine logic of the free market grants companies the right to poison other people’s islands.”
I lack your confidence on that point. Certainly, as Patrick points out, it has in the past been the consensus position of the national security establishment that national security gives us the right to poison other people’s islands.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Wow, a little skepticism sure seems to be causing you guys a lot of pain.
Has anyone even seen kim display any skepticism?
I see her gullibly accepting and repeating every claim she comes across, as long as it furthers her point.
Global cooling! Sunspots! This four-year wobble in global average temperature is different from the last 50, I just know it!
Skepticism: your not doin it rite.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Looking at the map that was linked in the comments at Kevin Drum’s site: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml , there’s some moderate rise (by their measure) in sea levels to the west on the PI coast, some small rise to the east in the Carolines, and some drop to the north in and around Guam and the CNMI. There’s no measurements near Paupa New Guinea on that map, so it’s hard to tell exactly what the magnitude is in the Carterets when compared to the region.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Re Don Williams
I am shocked, shocked I tell you. Mr. Williams isn’t blaming global warming on the International Zionist Conspiracy! Must be getting soft in his advancing years.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
See what Kolohe just did there? That’s skepticism.
I see you’ve made a claim. I’m not going to take your word for it, but look further into the data. Hmm, the data are inconsistent, but lean in a certain direction. I will need more data before drawing a firm conclusion.
Skepticism: Kolohe’s doin it rite.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
This comment thread is exhibit A on why nothing happens re. global warming. Skeptics find flaws with arguments put forth by supporters of climate action, said supporters react angrily, flame war ensues. Any disinterested observers come off feeling like it is just a political argument that they don’t know enough to get involved with. The power of a vocal, committed minority to disrupt a relative consensus in this arena is staggering. It has gotten better, though, we are getting closer, and at some point it will be treated as less of a black and white denialist vs. realist debate, and we will come to accept reality.
Reality is certainly that Waxman-Markley doesn’t do enough. We all need to change our behavior and reduce consumption, and this won’t happen on a mass scale until we collectively accept how serious this shit is, and envision how we can live a meaningful exixtence without acting like gluttonous consumer-heads.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Jason L, 18. Heh, heh, a conversation based on a suspect premise, as is typical of the alarmists.
LaFollette, 21. Check out the latest graphs on sea level rise. It has practically stopped in the last three years. This makes sense since temperature of the oceans has dropped minimally in the last few years. We may well see a drop in sea levels, soon, particularly if the sun gets into the act.
Clearly, though, CO2’s contribution to climate has been exaggerated.
=========================================
May 15th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
If your point is that sea levels are rising, you should just say that, and cite the relevant figures. What you don’t do, if you’re honest, is throw in a human-interest story about an inundated island while conveniently omitting that fact that this may or may not have much to do with rising sea levels.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Nate, 26. The new deniers are those denying global cooling, and the role of natural cycles in climate regulations. The so-called ‘consensus’ is unraveling daily.
joe, 25. Your incoherence is not persuasive.
====================================
May 15th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
cyd, 29. Good heavens. You are more persuasive than I am. I think I’ll go infest another board somewhere; you don’t need any help.
===========================================
May 15th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Re Kim
Nate, 26. The new deniers are those denying global cooling, and the role of natural cycles in climate regulations. The so-called ‘consensus’ is unraveling daily.
Now where have I heard this before? Oh yes, this is a refrain much repeated by one William Dembski about the neo-Darwinian synthesis of evolution. Any day now, that synthesis will disappear to be replaced by Intelligent Design. Of course, Dr. Dembski is also a global warming denier.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I fear that if we had a factory making poison which we were dropping on the Carteret Islands you would in fact see blue dogs fearing that their factory will be shut down. Sure you might have a compromise where we created the poison, but stopped using it, but if there was a massive poison production program, it would in fact have defenders in Washington.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
SLC, 31. Watch the thermometers.
=====================
May 15th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
If it were announced that the United States of America was planning on dumping a load of poison on the Carteret Islands rendering them uninhabitable, I think even Sen. James Inhof of Oklahoma would be spurred to action.
Wanna bet?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
So, kim, it looks like you’re no longer defending the notion that the forcing due to CO2 is a constant. What happened? Did you look up the word “constant” in the dictionary?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Clearly, though, CO2’s contribution to climate has been exaggerated.
Skepticism!
Nate, 26. The new deniers are those denying global cooling, and the role of natural cycles in climate regulations. The so-called ‘consensus’ is unraveling daily.
Skepticism!
May 15th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Jeffrey, 35. You have a bad reading comprehension problem, or else a problem with honestly representing another’s views. In neither case am I favorably impressed. What I said on an earlier thread is that Miscolzi suggests that the net greenhouse effect of CO2 forcing and its feedbacks may be a constant, and that no one has successfully refuted him yet. There is a big difference between that and what you just said. You could look it up.
==========================================
May 15th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
joe, 36, raves on. It is very clear that the Global Climate Models have failed and the reason they have failed is that they exaggerate the water vapor feedback to CO2’s initial forcing. Most people conflate the two to ‘CO2’s effect’ and that is what has been exaggerated. The models also poorly parameterize clouds and convection. We’ll be cooling for twenty years or so because of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and way longer if the sun’s present peculiar behaviour is presaging a new Little Ice Age.
Leif Svalgaard has an excellent post at wattsupwiththat.com about the fading sunspots. He doesn’t believe that will effect climate, but is honest enough to admit that no one knows for sure.
==================================
May 15th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Re kim
Well, well, Mr. kim finally came up with a link and guess, what, it’s to Anthony Watts’ web site. That’s Anthony Watts, the noted 9/11 troofer. As I thought, Mr. Kim is a nutcase who gets his information from his fellow nutcases.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
kim, I don’t think that feigning bafflement when confronted with your own failures of intellect is quite as impressive an argument as you seem to believe.
It is very clear that the Global Climate Models have failed
Skepticism!
We’ll be cooling for twenty years or so because of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Skepticism!
May 15th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
The Stupid Fucking Natives dynamited and destroyed large swathes of their own protective reefs in an ignorant attempt to increase the fish population in their lagoon.
The potentially devastating effects of their wanton destruction were noted and warned of at the time. The Stupid Fucking Natives refused to listen and dynamited away.
Even a cursory inquiry would reveal these FACTS.
So yes Matty the destruction of the Caterets is man made but boo hoo for you not American made.
The stupid fucking natives did this one to themselves.
Matty long ago explained that alarmist bullshit in the service of his Global Climate Religion was necessary and justified.
Even to the most grotesque lying as he does here.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
What I said on an earlier thread is that Miscolzi suggests that the net greenhouse effect of CO2 forcing and its feedbacks may be a constant, and that no one has successfully refuted him yet.
I’m not sure your sentence makes any sense. I still don’t think you have a clue what the word “constant” means.
And surely you mean nothing has refuted him except all research done on CO2 and the atmosphere since Svante Arrhenius.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Jeffrey, it’s interesting how these arguments evolve in stages. First it was “there’s no global climate change!” Then it was, “there is climate change, but we didn’t cause it.” They’ve gone through an intermediate step of “There is climate change that we’re causing, but it’s self-correcting” before they get to the final stage of, “there is climate change, we did cause it, it’s doing damage, but it too late and too expensive to do anything about it now.”
May 15th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Stay classy, JT.
Also, it’s probably worth noting in regard to this meme about the locals dynamiting and destroying their protective reefs that’s being passed around wingnut websites, you will be shocked to learn that this seems to be a gross exaggeration. The only semi-reputable sources I can find mention plausible rumors of damage done to the reefs by dynamite fishing, but evidence of deliberate destruction of “large swathes” of the reef is pretty much confined to unsourced ravings on climate change denialist sites.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Re Tyro
This is known as the Racehorse Haynes defense. Richard “Racehorse” Haynes is a noted Texas trial attorney, know for his defense of murder suspects as follows.
1. My client wasn’t in the country when the crime occurred
2. My client was in the country but he was 1000 miles away when the crime occurred.
Re LaFollette Progressive
That’s where goat fuckers like Mr. JT spend their time, at nutcase websites.
3. My client was in town but he was 10 miles away then the crime occurred.
4. My client was at the crime scene but he didn’t pull the trigger.
5. My client pulled the trigger but it was in self defense.
6. My client committed the killing but the SOB deserved it.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
wow, the ‘kim’ unit on this thread has got to be the dumbest blog troll I’ve seen in a while
May 15th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Certainly I doubt that you’d see a Blue Dog member of the House whining that since the poison factory is located in his district, he doesn’t see how we can possibly afford to stop producing the poison.
Yeah, really, this is pretty naive.
On islands:
the kind of islands like this that would be at risk for subsidence – small, low-lying, distant from other landforms – often weren’t charted or studied until the mid-20th century and the development of satellite imaging and transoceanic flight. So we don’t have great data on this sort of thing. No time like the present, though. I do recall, in reading on European and Japanese history, occasional mentions of islands that had since sunk beneath the waves, but I didn’t know there would be a quiz so I didn’t take notes.
May 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
SLC, 39. I don’t think Anthony Watts writes about 9/11, but Leif Svalgaard writes eloquently about the sun at wattsupwiththat.com There is good stuff there about the Cheshire smile sunspots. C’mon, big boy, have a little curiosity.
joe, 40. Even less persuasive than before.
Jeffrey, 42. You could google Miscolzi and learn a little.
onceler, 46. Such substance! I’m knocked out.
==============================
May 15th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Re kim
Mr. kim is badly misinformed. Anthony Watts is a 9/11 troofer which makes him a nutcase. He is also a former weatherman, not a climate scientist and has no qualifications whatever to pontificate on climate. As for looking at a thermometer, it is obvious that Mr. kim doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate.
May 15th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Re Anthony Watts
Here’s a link to Mr. Watts’ views on 9/11. He is as full of shit about 9/11 as he is about global warming.
http://viewsontheridge.com/psychodrama/2007/05/anthony_watts_letter.html
May 15th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Exagerated? For years I’ve been hearing the right say CO2 has no effect on climate, are they now saying the effect is being exagerated or is this just your opinion?
May 15th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
joe, 40. Even less persuasive than before.
I’ve explained this to you before: I don’t care about persuading you. You’re a paid shill, here to hawk some web site and confuse the issue, without the slightest regard for the truth. I don’t care what you think about me.
No, rather than persuade you, I’m trying to discredit you – discredit you in the eyes of anyone reading this, who might not know your sordid history, the frequency with which you’ve been caught lying, etc.
I’m just putting a road flare in front of a fallen tree. I don’t care if the tree likes the road flare.
May 15th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
SLC, 49&50. Hah, hah; it seems he’s an anti 9/11 troofer.
jg, 51. You can’t have been paying a lot of attention. Sure, CO2 has a radiative effect. The key question is what is its net effect, WITH feedbacks, and that is presently unknown.
joe, 52, can’t prove a lie by me so he indulges his inner pyromaniacal self. Readers are allowed to check out what I say under their own initiative. I encourage it.
Back on topic. Is it obvious that this island business is propaganda and Matt is seriously deluded about climate?
=================================================
May 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
SLC, 49. I refer those who are too ignorant, biased, or stupid to discuss climate in a rhetorically honest way to the job of thermometer watching. It will fall for 20 years, and you’ll eventually get the message.
=====================================
May 15th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
joe, 52. Poor joe doesn’t get the point; it is the readers to whom you are not persuasive. I’ve already figured out that you don’t know enough about climate or rhetoric to consider engaging with you. You’re just a thug; people like you are a dime a dozen.
================================
May 15th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Well, Mr. kim is correct, apparently I misread the article linked to about Mr. Anthony Watts. He is indeed not a 9/11 troofer. My apologies to Mr. Watts. This was also pointed out on a thread on the Mooney/Kirshenbaum Intersection blog.
Apparently, however, Mr. Watts is a CFCs/ozone depletion denier which makes him a kook. Mr. Watts cites a paper in the technical literature which he claims shows that ozone depletion is caused by cosmic rays. As the attached link indicates, he totally mis-characterizes the paper (see the first comment).
http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/04/google-analytics-urchin-6-webstats-statistics-deniers-wattsupwiththat-anthony-watts/
May 15th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
SLC, 56. You are to be commended for the correction, SLC. Your credibility rises.
Ozone and its holes is a complex, poorly understood phenomenon. I’m not particularly expert on the matter, so will refrain from further comment.
Watts Up With That should be judged on its own merits, not on cherry-picked instances of its owners opinion. I’ll repeat myself, at wattsupuwiththat.com there is an excellent review of what is happening with the sunspots by Leif Svalgaard, who is hardly a climate skeptic.
===========================================
May 15th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
I’m an astrophysicist who studies the Sun. So color me distinctly unimpressed with the claims of solar influence…
Starting with the undisputed fact that the solar irradiance (energy from the Sun) hasn’t budged over the last 30 years of continuous measurement. It has varied by, at most 0.1%. There are windows (UV, for example) which vary more…but not enough to matter. And we also know that the global temperature rise has been in the form of warmer nights, not warmer days…precisely as expected for increased heat trapping. Cosmic rays are a dead end – there was a nice recent paper showing that they were many orders of magnitude away from being able to impact cloud formation. I could go on, but the arguments are not being made in good faith and don’t deserve it.
When I saw Watt go with the laughably bogus “Mars and Neptune are warming too” bit I knew that it had nothing to do with science. When I see people grasping at statistical noise – and the utterly laughable “global cooling” nonsense, in a decade of record temperatures on a clear decades-long trend…
What can you say? The science is absolutely clear, and the debate in the actual community is on the degree to which we were too conservative and underestimated feedback.
In the hothouse denialist world everything is falling apart, just like it is for evolution.
Kim – they awarded a nobel prize for the work on the ozone-CFC connection. They don’t pass those out like candy; the idea that it is “complicated” and there is some “controversy” is utter bunk. See
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/press.html
May 15th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Marc, 58. Well obviously you haven’t read what Leif has to say at Watts Up. Again, no particular expertise here, but quoting 1995 about ozone is a little dated. I repeat, ozone, and ozone holes are still mysterious. Isn’t there a finding from a couple of years ago showing that the chemical reaction upon which the two decade old hysteria about ozone holes proceeded much more slowly than was thought at the time?
The globe, atmosphere and oceans, which hold much more heat content, is clearly cooling for the last four years. It is expected to continue to cool for at least another 20 on the basis of the oceanic oscillations. The alarmists have only their vain hope that the exaggerated CO2 effect will make a recovery from its swoon and start warming the globe again. The models have failed, spectacularly. Time to re-evaluate a few assumptions.
=========================================
May 15th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
marc, 48. Also, theresilientearth.com had a nice article on 5/10 about the Science article trying to debunk the Svensmark hypothesis.
The mechanism by which the sun directs climate, if it does, is unknown. Pretty clearly the TSI alone is not enough to explain the wide swings in climate. There is likely some magnifying mechanism of some manifestation of the sun that does it, but how to avoid hypersensitivity of climate to that manifestation is an excellent question. Leif Svalgaard is skeptical that the sun directs the climate.
What is obvious, just in the fact that climate can cool as dramatically as it has in the last few years is that the effect of CO2 on climate has been exaggerated. We really ought to figure out what the real effect is; it would be a useful thing to know. The assumption of the effect of CO2 that is in the models is what has caused them to fail. Well, that and poorly parameterized clouds and convection.
======================================
May 15th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
You do understand that you’re talking to someone who works on the Sun professionally, right? I’m not parroting blog posts. I find Lockwood & Frolich’s work decisive – in demonstrating that there is no empirical correlation with sunspots at all. And having read his article I saw absolutely nothing that I would argue about – or that would tell me that anything special was going on. We use a lot of different indirect measurements to infer solar cycle properties. They don’t measure exactly the same thing, so sometimes the answers drift or disagree a bit. There is nothing whatsoever wrong, or suspicious, about this at all. It is not surprising that historical records disagree with more precise modern ones (e.g. how do you count sunspots)?
I GAVE YOU THE CITATION FOR THE NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY.
Do you have a tiny clue as to what that means? They wait *decades* to award science Nobel prizes until the effect is established beyond a reasonable doubt. I could go about how it works, and the evidence behind it, to great length if I was so inclined. But the CFC issue does tell you something important.
The people peddling climate change denial also peddled ozone-CFC denial. They were utterly wrong then, they are utterly wrong now. In science it does matter if you are spectacularly wrong about important issues…
May 15th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Please examine graph of ocean heat content:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ohc_domingues.jpg
And remember: half the carbon that has been put into the atmosphere by human activity has been put there since 1970.
The mechanism by which the sun directs climate, if it does, is unknown
Why don’t you consider nuclear fusion? It’s been in all the papers.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Marc, 61. Oh, hah, hah. I just love the ‘Do you know who you are talking to’? What I’m talking about on Watt’s Up is Svalgaard’s discussion of what Livingston and Penn have discovered about the fading sunspots. You don’t want to seem to look at that, instead to prefer to come all authoritative. You seem to have missed my point entirely. I’m not claiming that the lack of sunspots will cool the earth; surely Svalgaard doesn’t seem to think so. So your general missing the point here seems to make me doubt your bonafides.
Besides, the last two times the spots went away, the earth did cool, during the Dalton and Maunder Minimums, but volcanoes, which clearly cool the earth also happened at that time. If there are no supervening albedo events, and if the earth cools when the spots go away, we may be given a big clue as to how the sun directs the climate.
Jeffrey, 62. Oh, so it’s nuclear fusion by which the sun directs the climate? Why don’t you talk to the big expert Marc, who seems to doubt that. You, my good man, haven’t a clue about the question. Also, Jeffrey, I’ve claimed that ocean heat content has dropped since 2005 on the basis of the findings of Josh Willis’s 3000 Argos buoys. Your graph conveniently stops at 2005. You won’t find many skeptics who’ll try to argue that the globe didn’t warm for the last quarter of the last century, and just into this century a bit. What we are skeptical about is that CO2 is the cause of that rise.
====================================
May 15th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Marc, 61. Sorry, the science of ozone and its holes, and the effect of ultraviolet radiation on them is hardly settled. We are still learning new things about them. Some even postulate that it is the variability of the sun’s UV radiation, is it 8%?, and the effect of UV on ozone that is the mechanism by which the sun directs the climate. I don’t think that, but if the mechanism by which the sun directs the climate is multifactorial, then UV and ozone may be one of them. You seem remarkably uncurious for a big time ‘astrophysicist’.
===========================================
May 15th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
marc, 61. The term ‘climate change denier’ is disingenuous, in fact, frankly erroneous. Most skeptics accept climate change, believing it is from natural forces and cycles. Skeptics are a diverse breed, but a common characteristic among them is doubt that CO2 has as big an effect to warm the globe as has been ascribed to it by alarmist scientists, drama-seeking journalists, and power mad politicians. So please, a little more precision with your terminology would clean up your rhetoric, and probably your cognition, significantly.
Similarly, I believe ‘energy footprint’ is a much cleaner and environmentally useful term than ‘carbon footprint’. It will come into general use, once the CO2=AGW paradigm has completely collapsed. Evaluating systems and societies on the basis of the energy use is reality oriented compared to chasing the chimera of carbon demonization.
==========================================
May 16th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Re kim
Mr. kim demonstrates all the typical manifestations of the crank. When confronted by someone like Mr. (or is it Dr.) Marc, who is an expert on the subject, he obfuscates by quoting another scientist, in this case one like Mr. Svallgard, who disagrees with the scientific consensus. This is typical crank behavior. One can see it in evolution deniers who cite folks like Michael Behe. One can see it in HIV/AIDS deniers who cite folks like Peter Duesberg. One can see it in the big bang deniers who cite folks like Thomas Gold.
As Mr. (Dr.) Marc points out, the science behind the connection between ozone depletion and CFCs is quite settled. The dissenters are very much the fringe and are not taken seriously, any more then the evolution deniers or the HIV/AIDS deniers are taken seriously.
May 16th, 2009 at 7:40 am
SLC, 66 You don’t understand what is going on here. You should read Leif Svalgaard at Watts Up. It’s in the thread about the 10.7 radio flux. You could hardly accurately characterize Svalgaard’s position as ‘disagreeing with the scientific consensus’. Go try it, you might like it. Marc, the supposed expert, and I have been talking past each other. Marc assumed that I want to claim that diminished sunspots, and/or diminished Total Solar Insolation, will cool the globe. That is a strawman, and one of the reasons I suspect Marc’s bonafides. The relationship between the sun and climate is probably a great deal more complex than that. Marc has not responded, as a solar scientist would, to any of my suggestions about the relationship, preferring instead to beat up a strawman, Similarly, I talk about the climate effect of UV and ozone, and you and Marc only want to talk about CFCs and ozone. This is not reasoned discourse.
And I wish you’d check out my suggestion, actually a question, that recent research found that a chemical reaction at the heart of the ozone/CFC brouhaha proceeds at only a fraction of the rate at which it was believed to proceed back in the day. Kiddoes, there really isn’t any such thing as ’settled’ science.
===============================================
May 16th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Incidentally, this is a recurring theme of my discussions with true believers. Over and over again they demonstrate a primitive understanding of the skeptical position and then create a strawman to beat up on. It sometimes seems almost unfair to interrupt their obvious enjoyment in their preoccupation and try to direct it to useful discussion. It’s like they’re ‘not even wrong’.
We are cooling, folks; for how long, even kim doesn’t know.
=========================================
May 16th, 2009 at 8:03 am
What really has my suspicions raised about the ‘expert’ Marc is that an astrophysicist with specific knowledge about the sun would know that the role of ultra-violet rays in the formation of ozone in the upper atmosphere is a field with rapidly ongoing acquisition of knowledge, and thus the sun’s relationship to the formation of ‘holes’. I’m not even expert about the field, but know enough to know that any solar astrophysicist would admit that.
Does he know enough to know that the magnetic fields of the earth are involved? That is one of the reasons for the varying hole at the South Pole. Does he know enough to know that the magnetic fields and the expression of them vary a lot? If not we’d either have constant aurorae borealis or none at all.
Off topic, but there is a study showing a correlation anciently between Nile River levels and the activity of Aurorae Borealis. That suggests a causal link between the sun and climate, but certainly doesn’t specify a mechanism. When, and if, the mechanism by which the sun directs the climate is elucidated, it will be worthy of a Great Prize. UV rays and ozone might have something to do with it.
=========================================
May 16th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Re kim
Kiddoes, there really isn’t any such thing as ’settled’ science.
Really, so the evolutionary notion of common descent is not settled science? So the heliocentric solar system is not settled science? So the relationship between HIV and AIDS is not settled science? So the bacterial theory of disease is not settled science? So the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer is not settled science. So continental drift is not settled science?
May 16th, 2009 at 8:16 am
SLC, 70. Touche. There are certainly some questions of science that are better settled than others. Ozone and ozone holes, and the causes and consequences of them, are not particularly settled.
=================================================
May 16th, 2009 at 8:19 am
On second thought, I’ll take back a little of that touche. In all of your instances of ’settled science’ the understanding we have about them is undergoing continued knowledge acquisition, and refinement of our beliefs and insights. So, yes, even your instances do not constitute ’settled science’. Now please don’t go claiming that I don’t believe in any of those paradigms. I do. But our understanding of them evolves.
===========================================
May 16th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Re kim
I would be curious as to how evolution of our understanding of the paradigm of the heliocentric solar system would in any way, shape, form, or regard result in another theory replacing it.
May 16th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Re kim @ 67
Oh I understand very well what is going on here. What we have is a crank calling himself kim who cites fringe scientists who dissent from the scientific consensus on subjects like global warming and ozone depletion. I have long experience with such individuals. I have gotten into fruitless discussions with Mr. kims’ fellow travelers in evolution denial who cite Bill Dembski, big bang denial who cite Thomas Gold, HIV/AIDS denial who cite Peter Duesberg, etc.
May 16th, 2009 at 8:49 am
SLC, 73&74. Oh, hee, hee. Now you are creating a strawman and beating up on it. And it is embarrasingly apparent that you’ve not read Svalgaard at Watts Up if you continue to characterize him as a ‘fringe scientist’. You were warned. Repeatedly.
==================================================
May 16th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Just out of curiosity, SLC, in what way does Leif Svalgaard belong in the ‘fringe’ of solar or climate science? I might know the answer to that question, but would bet a lot that you don’t.
===========================================
May 16th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Your error here, SLC, is to believe that skepticism about the CO2=AGW paradigm is equivalent to doubt about those other well established scientific paradigms. In fact the CO2=AGW paradigm is collapsing in the face of dropping temperatures and the reasonable belief that the temperature will continue to drop for two more decades. CO2’s role in climate has been exaggerated, and fundamentally the error was in ascribing a large positive value to the feedback of water vapor to the initial forcing of CO2. Empirically, that large positive feedback is not being demonstrated. Unequivocally, the projections from the climate models which depend upon that feedback, are being disconfirmed at an ever higher confidence level as time goes by. It’s time you investigate this matter with an open mind, or I’m going to put you to work watching thermometers.
==============================================
May 16th, 2009 at 9:11 am
There is a very nice little point to be understood about this business of the CO2=AGW paradigm. For a year or so I’ve been exploring the concept that this paradigm is similar to the anthropocentric concept that Galileo disputed with his heliocentric argument. Galileo’s concept of heliocentrism very radically changed the view of man’s relationship to his environment, but without much immediate social impact. Similarly, the overly simplified, guilt based concept that man effects the climate to the extent the alarmists would have you believe, is going to collapse in the face of global cooling, and more sophisticated understanding of climate regulation. While the collapse of that paradigm will not have the revolutionary aspect that Galileo’s insight had on the place of man in the universe, it will have much greater immediate social and policy impact.
Think about it. Man is not the center of the universe, and man’s release of trace amounts of a trace gas is not having much effect on the vast heat engine that is the earth. We’ve increased the amount of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere from 3 per ten thousand to 4 per ten thousand. Birmingham Fire Department.
===========================================
May 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Your graph conveniently stops at 2005.
If you’d actually looked at the entire graph, you’d have noticed that the heat content of the oceans has gone up and down for years, but that the long term track is up.
We’ve increased the amount of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere from 3 per ten thousand to 4 per ten thousand.
Actually, from 280 (pre-Industrial Revolution) to 349 ppm (as of March). By volume. A greater amount (582 ppm) by mass. Your job, should you decide to accept it, is to calculate the amount of energy per square meter that represents per year. Then sum that from 1850 onwards to the present. Let us know the amount of warming you come up with. Then calculate how much more CO2 a Business as Usual scenario would put into the atmosphere by 2100 and repeat the temperature calculations. If it would be too taxing, a panel of leading scientists have already done it and have presented a report about it. They’ve also done a nice job of evaluating all the other vectors (aerosols, soot, CH4, O3, etc.) and estimating various feedbacks through time. Maybe you’ve heard about it. It’s called the IPCC and they’ve done this a number of times.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Jeffrey, 79. I’ve already made this point, but I’ll repeat it for your sake. Hardly anyone denies that the globe warmed for centuries. Many skeptics deny that CO2 is the cause of that warming. So your graph showing rising heat content of the oceans is not particularly instructive as to the cause of that rise. And I repeat, the heat content of the oceans has dropped since 2005. Whether that is cause or effect of the dropping atmospheric temperatures is not surely known, but the two do correlate.
The IPCC has a mistaken notion of the effect of CO2 on climate because they and their models assume a large positive feedback of water vapor to the initial forcing by CO2. That feedback is not being demonstrated by empirical measurements. The bottom line is that the IPCC analysis is suspect, nay, it is wrong.
====================================
May 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Jeffrey, 79. I’ve already made this point, but I’ll repeat it for your sake. Hardly anyone denies that the globe warmed for centuries. Many skeptics deny that CO2 is the cause of that warming. So your graph showing rising heat content of the oceans is not particularly instructive as to the cause of that rise. And I repeat, the heat content of the oceans has dropped since 2005. Whether that is cause or effect of the dropping atmospheric temperatures is not surely known, but the two do correlate.
kim, you’re an idiot. You didn’t even look at the farking graph for 2 seconds. If you had you would have noticed that the heat content varies considerably. Up. Down. Even at decadal time scales. But the long term trend is up. Unmistakably up. You’re not noticing anything novel.
The IPCC may have got this notion since physics has determined the amount of heat that CO2 can re-radiate back to Earth. It’s a moment for you to realize that you don’t have a clue about the issues. You also seem to love other crack-pot physics. I’d suggest a different line of work.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Jeffrey, 81. Omigod, of course the heat content of the oceans has gone generally up; so has the temperature of the globe. And what do you suppose are the causes of that content varying around the constantly rising slope? It surely can’t be CO2 which is monotonically rising. I don’t think you understand my argument at all, or even yours, and the point remains, your graph stops at 2005, at which time the oceans started cooling.
The IPCC seems to understand the underlying radiative effect of CO2, which is quite small, but it has exaggerated, without any definitive physics to back them up, the net effect of CO2 by mistakenly assuming a large positive feedback of water vapor. This H2O feedback is not being found in the data. I’ve made this point for you a number of times, so I would suggest it is you who haven’t the clue.
=====================================
May 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
It surely can’t be CO2 which is monotonically rising.
As near as I can tell, you’re the only one who imagines a single vector for climate.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
The IPCC seems to understand the underlying radiative effect of CO2, which is quite small, but it has exaggerated, without any definitive physics to back them up, the net effect of CO2 by mistakenly assuming a large positive feedback of water vapor. This H2O feedback is not being found in the data.
The calculated energy due to the increase in CO2, without any feedback at all is sufficient to have caused the warming since the Industrial Revolution.
The IPCC projection low range doesn’t include feedbacks.
So, it isn’t simply the graph I offered that you’ve ignored. I bet that if it isn’t in a denialist screed, you haven’t read anything at all about climate.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Jeffrey, 83. Of course I don’t think climate regulation has a single vector, as I’ve made abundantly clear if you’ve been paying attention. It is from a number of natural cycles. In fact, I think it is possible that CO2 has a net effect, but I find that it is too small to be identifiable within the temperature record. As a matter of fact, those who believed, and still believe in Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann’s crooked hockey stick with a flat temperature for the millenium preceding the recent rise do think that CO2 is the only vector effecting climate.
Jeffrey, 84. The earth’s temperature has been steadily rising from the end of the Little Ice Age, before the Industrial Revolution, and before the rise of CO2. And now, since the last few years, temperature is falling while CO2 is rising. And, I’m sorry, you are wrong; the IPCC’s calculations for the effect of CO2 include an assumed large and positive feedback from water vapor. It is that feedback that is not being demonstrated in actual physical measurements, and is the primary cause of the inadequacy of the models.
Look, you keep quoting the IPCC as this huge organization which can’t be wrong. It is demonstrably wrong with its projections. Not conjecturally, but demonstrably so. And it is little known that the chapter summaries were written by a small group of around 50 true believers, and the Summary for Policy Makers by an even smaller coterie of dedicated alarmists. The IPCC is fallible.
============================================
May 17th, 2009 at 10:03 am
“Too small to be identified”? Uh, no. The current forcing can be calculated from quantum principles. IIRC: 1.7W/m2 — an order of magnitude larger than Milankovich forcings. You remember them, don’t you? Melted the glaciers.
“The earth’s temperature has been steadily rising from the end of the Little Ice Age, ” Uh, no. Temps rapidly rose from the end of glaciation and have been relatively tightly constrained (+-0.4C) for ~10,000 years.
“Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann’s” Uh, no. Mann’s study was the honest one. You do remember the change in the labeling of the Y-axis, don’t you? The ORDER OF MAGNITUDE change. You remember which one had that, don’t you? And it wasn’t Mann. And you do remember that the study has not only been validated, it’s results have been duplicated by others using completely separate proxies. (Better trolls, please. With more up to date talking points.)
“Look, you keep quoting the IPCC as this huge organization which can’t be wrong. It is demonstrably wrong with its projections” Well, now. They’ve been right on the money. What does “demonstrably wrong” mean to you? No. Don’t tell me. Does it have something to do with “constants”?
“50 true believers” Like, oh, Richard Lindzen? An IPCC author.
(better trolls, please. With more up to date talking points. What have you been doing for the last, oh, 10 years, kim?)
May 17th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Jeffrey, 86. If the forcing is so great, why isn’t it seen in the temperature record. Remember, your supposed forcing is rising, yet the temperature is falling.
You confuse the ‘Little Ice Age’ a few hundred years ago with the last of the ‘Ice Ages’ which ended 10,000 years ago. Read up.
Michael Mann has been thoroughly debunked. Read up. Besides, if his hockey stick, shaft and blade, were true, then CO2 would be the only vector of climate change. You are internally inconsistent. Quick now, do you see why?
There are many hundreds of scientists who contributed to the IPCC report. Some of them are climate skeptics. My point remains; the chapter summaries were written by a group of around 50 dedicated alarmists, and the Summary for Policy Makers by an even smaller coterie of fewer than a dozen true believers. This is a matter of public record. You could look it up.
The bottom line which you can’t contradict is that the IPCC’s expectations have miserably failed. Their projections from AR4 have now been disconfirmed at the 95% confidence level in 8 short years. Those projections, starting from 2001 were for a 0.2 degree Centigrade rise of temperature per decade. The cooling over that time period has exposed the climate models in all their shameful deshabillement.
================================================
May 17th, 2009 at 10:33 am
re: the debunking of Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann.
His study depends upon one small series of split-bark Bristlecone Pine Trees. The study of Bristlecone Pines has been repeated by Ababneh and not confirmed. You could look it up.
His study depends upon a statistical technique which ‘cherry picks’ the Bristlecone Pine series. That statistical technique was most recently defended by Tamino at the Open Mind blog, a defense which blew up in his face when his own authority weighed in and debunked it. You could look it up.
His study shows a straight shaft of temperature for the last millenium, claiming that there was no such thing as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. That finding has been debunked by better studies demonstrating climate variability in the recent past, and debunked by the testimony of historical accounts. You could look it up.
Really, lose the Piltdown Mann. He is a horror show, and will be Exhibit One in how the Big Lie of Global Warming came about. His Hockey Stick is extremely well known, but it is the crookedest thing science produced in the 20th Century, worse even than the Piltdown Man. So keep up, please. What have you been doing for the last decade? Your talking points are as dated as you claim mine to be.
===============================================
May 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
kim,
you’re a nitwit. You simply ignored the fact that Mann’s results have been achieved by others using completely different proxies. The paper “debunking” Mann has been ripped to shreds. A long time ago. Except for dopes, nobody focuses on Mann and the Hockey Stick. You really should write for the new packet of talkng points.
Mann has used many proxies, BTW. What’s the point of raising an easily debunked point? I suspect you’re off your meds or pulling my leg.
My reference was to the earlier glaciation, not to the Little Ice Age. Temperatures plateaued quickly and have remained that way (+/- .4C) for 10,000 years. Do you think people can’t simply look it up.
Temps aren’t down for the last 7 years. 2005 was the warmest year on record. The last 12 months have been warmer than the previous 12 months. Each year of the last decade has been warmer than any recorded year prior to 1998. You make assertions as if assertions mean something without evidence. Is that how you think science works?
May 17th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Jeffrey, 89. Sorry, the studies purportedly replicating Mann’s results are just warmed over Mann and just as wrong. Really, McIntyre’s critique of Mann has been accepted everywhere but the hothouse of realclimate.org. In particular, check out the debunking of Mann’s statistics by Ian Joliffe at Tamino’s Open Mind. Michael Mann is a fraud. Also, google for the Congressional hearing debunking of Mann’s crooked hockey stick. His statistical technique is bogus. No competent statistician approves of it. Besides, temperatures have not been flat for the last millenium, as his hockey stick shaft claims, nor has his blade continued to rise. As I say, his work will be decisive in the revelation of the Big Lie about climate. Check out his ‘censored’ file, which tried to hide results which contradicted his first paper. He is probably academically unethical, not just ignorant.
The point we were addressing was about the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age. Maundering on about temperatures for the last 10,000 years is all very interesting, but not pertinent. Those temperatures haven’t been as stable as you may think, see the Roman Optimum etc, but we are probably just quibbling about that.
Yes, I agree that 2005 was a warm year. If you’ll look carefully, I only claim we’ve been cooling since then. But, and this is a nuance, so watch it, I claimed that the IPCC’s projections have been disconfirmed over the last 9 years. See lucia’s Blackboard at rankexploits.com/musings for exhaustive treatment of the subject.
========================================
May 17th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Jeffrey, do you notice how carefully you have to cherry-pick your statements to make it seem as if we are still warming. I can say that every year since 2005 has been cooler than 2005 and be looking at the same graph you are.
The important point is that we are several years into a 25-30 year cooling phase correlated to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and several other oscillations. Their signature can be seen in 62 year cycles in the historical record. So, even though the last year was a little warmer than the previous, we can expect another 20 years of cooling. Again, the important point is that the IPCC’s projections of warming aren’t happening. They were based on too high a sensitivity of climate to CO2.
===================================
May 17th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
For another example about Mann, look at Steig’s recent paper purporting to show warming in Antarctica. Mann contributed some of the statistical work. Their data has now been analyzed statistically in a hundred different ways and of those hundred, Steig’s and Mann’s show the greatest warming. They probably improperly smoothed data temporally and spatially to get their results. Now, I can’t accuse them of deliberate deceit, at least partly because they haven’t thoroughly revealed their methods, but you can’t keep coming up with results like Mann gets without raising questions among legitimate scientists.
============================================
May 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Temps can’t be “falling” if the last year has been warmer than the previous year. And temps rise and fall. There are decadal spans in the record of falling temps. The significance of your span is not only scant, your data is wrong.
Principal Component Analysis is a standard statistical technique.
You still ignore that other studies reproduce Mann’s results.
Your earlier use of 2005 was in regard to ocean temps. You also ignored my data regarding those.
I still think you’re nuts or pulling my leg. If you’re a paid troll someone isn’t getting their money’s worth,.