August 01, 2016

Dr. Tim Ball: How the world was deceived about global warming and climate change

Tim BallRebel Columnist

Current weather is normal; that is, it is well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations. There are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather. The climate is changing just as it always has and always will and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe. The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.

One phenomenon that creates the illusion weather is abnormal is the attention given by the media. We all experience being introduced to a person then seeing them pop up every time we turn around. It’s the same thing with cars after you buy one you see them everywhere. In both cases they were always there, but not part of your awareness. Weather and climate events seem to occur everyday, but it is because they became a media story. They always occurred. Now the story appears and is amplified by the sensationalism of the media with their "Extreme Weather Reports."

The entire objective of those pursuing the political agenda was to create the illusion that current weather is abnormal and therefore unnatural. They wanted to show that all this occurred in the last 100 years as a result of human industrial activity. The objective was to create false science, which was easy because few people know about weather and climate, a fact confirmed by a Yale University study that created a High School exam. Figure 1 shows the raw results with 52 percent getting an F and 25 percent a D for a total failure of 77 percent.

Figure 1

Promoters of the false story also knew people know even less about climate. Indeed, most don’t even know the difference between weather and climate. Weather is the atmospheric conditions you experience at any point in time. The climate is the average of those conditions in a region or over time.

A few years ago I wrote, but didn’t submit, a story for the Globe and Mail with the headline, “An Area of Arctic Ice Twice the Size of Vancouver Island Melted today.” The story then revealed that this was a normal amount of melt. Imagine my surprise when recently it appeared in reality! The headline I tongue-in-cheek considered writing was in a national newspaper:

Melting in the Arctic reached an all-time high in June: Ice has been disappearing at a rate of 29,000 square miles a day.

This is near the average daily rate of melt in the brief Arctic summer, but few people know this is natural. Approximately 10 million km2 of ice melts every summer in approximately 145 days, which is a melt rate of 68,965 km2 (26,627 square miles) per day. The amount mentioned is well within the wide variation in melt from year to year.

Figure 2 provides a brief context to show the wider natural range of temperature over the last 10,000 years. It shows the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere derived from Greenland ice cores.

Figure 2

The current temperature is on the right (red line). Some salient points that expose the lies and distortions;

* The world was warmer than today for 97 percent of the last 10,000 years, a period known variously as the Climatic Optimum, or more recently the Holocene Optimum. We have known about this warmer period for at least 75 years.

* The world was 2°C warmer than today 1000 years ago during the Medieval warming. Remember, you are told that the world is going to warm by 2°C, and that is catastrophic.

* The world was 4°C warmer than today during the Minoan warming.

* We are told the amount and rate of temperature increase in the last 100 years (shown in red) is abnormal. Compare the slope with any of the previous increases.

* The green line indicates the larger trend and shows that the Earth has cooled for approximately the last 7000 years.

The CO2 changes over this period, but those changes follow the temperature. The global warming proponents tell the public it is the opposite. As in all temperature changes, there is a logical explanation that does not include CO2. In this case the longer trend fits what is called the Milankovitch Effect (ME).  These are the collective changes caused by Sun/Earth relationships, including orbit, tilt, and precession of the Equinox (Figure 3).

Figure 3

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not include the ME in their computer models that are the source of predictions about future climate. No wonder they are always wrong.

The existence of the ME explains, beyond lack of knowledge, why the public is susceptible to the natural/unnatural ploy. Most people think the Earth’s orbit round the Sun is a small, unchanging ellipse. Science knew this was incorrect years ago. Joseph Adhémar (1797-1862) proposed that the likely cause of climate change in the earth’s solar orbit.

James Croll expanded the idea and calculated orbital eccentricity effects on solar radiation for different latitudes over 3 million years, and published the results in 1867. The primary cause of the orbital change is the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter. It is a significant change. (Figure 4).

Figure 4

The cycle is 100,000 years, but that is from minimum to maximum ellipse and back to the minimum. The solar energy currently received when the Earth is closest to the Sun (perihelion) varies from +3.5% to -3.5%. When furthest away (aphelion) 20,000 years ago the difference was +8.5% and -8.5%.

Today, 149 years later, this is little known to most. The main reason is that it contradicts the philosophical basis of Western science, uniformitarianism. This is the idea that change is gradual over long periods of time. A quick look at the geologic or any other natural record shows it is false. However, it means people are easily persuaded that a change, especially sudden change, is unnatural.

People were vulnerable and therefore easily fooled. Worse, the deceivers deliberately changed the record to enhance their deception. They created what is natural or normal. Watch the video by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) in which he demonstrates the changes made to the instrumental temperature record, all deliberately designed to enhance warming. These are the people who brand those who question the science as deniers and criminals. This is why it is the greatest deception, but worse, a deliberate deception.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-05-18 23:22:35 -0400
I’ m not a scientist, but a business man with above average intelligence used to analyzing data for complex decisions. What bothers me is none of the predictions made about global warming have come close.
25000polar bears in 1990, 35000 today. Thought climate was killin them.
Neither New York City or Miami is under water.
No change in the number of hurricanes
Real observed temps are over 50% less than the climate models predicted
Rate in sea level change has not increased in hundreds of years.
The artic is not ice free in summer as predicted
If any of my managers had a track record like the climatatologists they would be fired outright.
commented 2016-08-12 04:48:35 -0400
I wonder for whom you’ve been working?

Why you deceive people and spread out those lias?

Nothing is true in your story! You even do not know that orbits of the planets around the sun are CIRCLES, not elliplses! I suggest you strongly to read Walter Russell and find out the truth. And, please stop ballshitting innocent people who have no idea about the real cause of the global warming!

In our civlization of LIE everything what is put in official circulation is a LIE! You are promoter of the LIE!

Of course, global warming DO EXIST and is caused by radioactivity and nuclear radiation due to the nuclear tests and nuclear technology all over the world.

I underline the fact that all things live and grow because of their ability to
generate enough heat to charge their bodies with their normal voltage, and no more.
Each living body has a normal temperature and pulsation frequency which must be
constant in order to live and grow. Death begins with the slightest upset of that
normalcy. Even one degree of extra heat beyond 98.6 will upset the entire metabolism
of man. That one degree of fever is one fifth of his way to death. That is equally true
of everything. Our planet already has a degree of “fever”, caused by radioactivity -
not greenhouse effect nor missing ozone nor CO2. That one degree has already upset the earth’s
metabolism enough to cause many fishes in the seas to migrate into colder waters. It is
causing ice caps and glaciers to melt, etc. Actually the degree registers a bit above one
degree and rising. Less than ten more degrees of radioactive fever will make of our
planet a barren waste!

The element of surprise which could delay the discovery of the great danger, and thus allow more
plutonium piles to come into existence, is the fact that scientists are looking near the
ground for fall-out dangers and other radioactive menaces. The greatest radioactive
dangers are accumulating from eight to twelve miles up. This seems to be totally
ignored – deliberately ignored. The upper atmosphere is already charged with deathdealing
radioactivity for which it has not yet sent us its bill. It is slowly coming,
however, and we will have to pay for it for another century, even if atomic energy
plants ceased today and all plants had not been built in the past two decades. That is
why it is possible to have many reactors in use before discovering it is too late to stop
building them. It would be impossible to destroy them for they could not be
approached. Plutonium and uranium piles cannot be destroyed in any other way than
by redistributing them the way Nature does. As that is utterly impossible, the only
recourse left to Man is to flee from them and let the centuries renormalize the earth
made barren by Man.

All of you who want the truth, please read Walter Russell: The Atomic Suicide!


I AM LAKI – Master Teacher
commented 2016-08-11 12:41:10 -0400
The planet is dying and you are too selective and biased in your thinking to realize it.
A conspiracy this big can’t be contained. However, no one seems to be breaking ranks, at least, you haven’t publicly exposed any climate change deserters. Why is that?
commented 2016-08-11 10:33:20 -0400
DOLY GARCIA – The first part of your comment as an ad hominem vs. Dr. Ball notwithstanding (i.e. that’s not an argument), no one is disputing that CO2 is going up. The effect of this is in dispute, and your argument is overstated; it’s yet another oversimplification of how Greenhouse Effect works, erroneous Arrhenius’ interpretation, how much role CO2 plays in this phenomenon, which is negligible by comparison to water vapour.

The recent article in Nature magazine (link at end of post) agrees with your initial statement:

“…the 2001–2014 period…a period in which anthropogenic forcing increased at a relatively constant rate”

However, they also found:

“..existence of a real reduction in the surface warming rate in the early twenty-first century relative to the

This conclusion is stated even after monkeying around with the data (i.e. anthropogenic instrument adjustments). In other words the correlation between CO2 and Temperature has decoupled. The reasons they give?

“This reduction arises through the combined effects of internal decadal variability, volcanic and solar activity, and decadal changes in anthropogenic
aerosol forcing.”

Finally it is stated:

“In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twentyfirst century, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing.”

If you’ve read anything on this topic the IPCC and it’s cohorts (who include the authors of this cited article) have been maintaining that solar activity is a neglible forcing, and that volcanic activity doesn’t even register (many disagree but that’s neither here nor there). Suddenly it’s a convenient culprit to account for offsetting CO2 (notwithstanding that IPCC people like to believe volcanoes can’t produce CFC’s even though they’ve been measured near vents since the 1970’s). The irony of course is that they are—in their own sideways manner—admitting that Mother Nature governs climate, despite the hubris of alarmists.

So ask your smartest friends all you like; if they tell you climate change is “man made” you know right then and they they haven’t a clue; if you actually believe the climate has NEVER changed prior to the human race they are actually dumb. This is what happens switch out terms like “anthropogenic global warming” with “climate change.” People who understand even elementary scientific principles and best practices understand language specificity is paramount. Conversely, people who spin a story tend to mix and match terms liberally—this is called ‘equivocation’; a well established logical fallacy; (i.e. not an argument).
commented 2016-08-08 09:30:58 -0400
Damn I hate the GW religious fanatics peddling their lying bullshit, aiding in the chorus to steal all our hard earned money.

If the hundreds of billions that were raped from the taxpayers went to things like getting rid

.- of land fill sites
.- toxic waste dumps
.- dumping raw sewage into rivers and oceans (see Montreal and Victoria)
.- making and improving recycling facilities
.- building levies to control flood water
.- building earthquake proof buildings
.- on and on …

that would make the taxation rape a wee bit more tolerable.
commented 2016-08-08 09:23:19 -0400
Doly Garcia said, “What is clear is that he is deliberately putting forward misinformation here. How do I know? Well, because the main reason that climate is warming on average is because carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are going up.”

That is not proven. The temperature is not going up. It has not for over 18 years now. Go peddle your lies somewhere the average IQ is lower, like on most socialist websites, especially the CBC.
commented 2016-08-07 22:46:47 -0400
Sooo, the Scientific consensus is in. Now we know, so lets just sign up for “CARBON TAXES” so we can stop “CLIMATE CHANGE” once and for all. After all, the Scientists have told us that we can stop what has been happening for millions of years, all we need to do is depopulate and get rid of HUMAN ACTIVITY so that we can SAVE THE PLANET, right. We can hold the climate at it’s optimal scientific best level no more climate change, no more Global Warming, no more Ice ages,no more Glacial melt, no more polar bears dying, no more sea level changes, just perfect weather, all the time, every where.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, to all the benevolent Government greenies and scientists for taking care of the poor human herd.
Just one minor detail, I don’t buy it. I don’t need a Lab report on the chemical make up of BULLSHIT to know it is BULLSHIT.
commented 2016-08-07 12:47:31 -0400
If anthropogenic climate change is a fiction, why is there a consensus that it is real and it is happening among virtually all climate scientists? Why does NASA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the US National Academy of Science, the IPCC, and virtually every Climate and Scientific body in the world agree, while anthropogenic climate change deniers in the academy have basically been the same 30-40 people for the last 20 years (aside from those who have switched from being deniers to accepting the common consensu) ? Do the people who think anthropogenic climate change is a conspiracy really think the vast majority of climate scientists and virtually every major scientific organization in the world (literally hundreds) that have taken a position on this, are somehow ‘in the pockets’ of some environmentalist conspiracy?
commented 2016-08-07 11:27:13 -0400
Let’s go through this real slowly:

1. Tim Ball’s expertise on climate science is, at best, a matter of dispute. There’s no question the man is a retired geographer. Whether he knows more about climate than anybody who has done a little research on the subject is questionable.

2. What is clear is that he is deliberately putting forward misinformation here. How do I know? Well, because the main reason that climate is warming on average is because carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are going up. I know for certain they are going up, because the company I work for uses carbon dioxide sensors. And no, we have nothing to do with climate research. They are lab equipment for pharmaceutical companies doing bacterial cultures. They need to measure how much carbon dioxide the bugs are generating. And I also know that, all the way back to the 19th century, a physicist that had no interest in current politics explained the current temperature of the earth’s atmosphere with the greenhouse effect. The more carbon dioxide, the higher temperatures go on Earth. It’s that simple. True, levels of carbon dioxide have changed over time. But human civilization doesn’t span millions of years, or even dozens of thousands of years. History only stretches back to the last 4,000 years. We know we can have a flourishing civilization in the current climate. We don’t know that we can still have it when the weather is substantially warmer. Any amateur researcher can easily find out all these facts, they’re repeatedly explained in climate change literature. Tim Ball doesn’t mention them, an accuses the rest of the world of creating a conspiracy theory. Therefore, he can’t possibly innocently believe what he’s saying. He must be deliberately creating disinformation. An intelligent person who just researched the facts by himself, asking the logical questions, can’t possibly reach Tim Ball’s conclusions. And I can prove it to you. Look for the smartest person you know personally (not a public figure) that is also honest. Ask them about climate change, face to face. I’d be willing to bet cents against dollars that this person thinks that climate change is happening, it is not natural, as in, it’s man-made, and that if it goes on like this, we may have to kiss our civilization goodbye. Go ahead, do it. Instead of watching YouTube videos and reading articles full of misinformation.
commented 2016-08-04 00:36:38 -0400
“The ocean is basic, but its rising pH is still enough to perturb the balance between soluble calcium bicarbonate and insoluble calcium carbonate”

I’ll take this as a simple error. Rising pH would mean it’s becoming more alkaline. I presume you knew that. “Even though it’s nominally basic, it’s still increasingly corrosive to corals and other hard shelled creatures due to the nature of the underlying chemical equilibrium.” -

It’s not nominally basic; pH is exponential, and the oceans average at about 8.1; this is over an order of magnitude more basic than neutral pH; and as long as it’s basic it’s not corrosive, unless you’re going to flip this on it’s head and now call it caustic? It’s pH which has changed nominally, it’s not nominally basic. Nominal change is NOT catastrophic, in fact the change is well withing the range of error.
commented 2016-08-04 00:22:19 -0400
So, obviously the answer to “Climate Change” is to dramatically increase taxes (carbon taxes) and this will magically end “Climate Change”. Uh Huh, just wondering who’s pockets will the billions and billions of dollars in collected taxes go. And I am also just wondering when will all this tax ON EVERYTHING money, being paid, start to END CLIMATE CHANGE. Oh ya and just one more minor detail, just at what point is it the optimum climate that we should fix the climate at? I am so glad our benevolent Government has decided to protect us from (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) changing climate. LOL, te he, what a sick joke. Who thinks this shit up.
commented 2016-08-03 17:37:19 -0400
Nicholas, not to change subjects, but the goal to keep us alarmed is also used by Keynes, Galbraith and other big government so called economists. The world dealt with and adapted to the business cycle, but that wasn’t good enough for the interventionists. They made us fear the business cycle, and then they would have the prescription of intervening in the money and other markets, making capitalism work “better”.
commented 2016-08-03 17:34:44 -0400
ANDY, they are most definitely the Luddites of this age. No rice. No safe crops. No modified crops that have fed the world. Are they aware of the predictions of the 60s and 70s that we would run out of food. The population has exploded since then and we can still feed the world thanks to evil modified crops.

No I wasn’t aware though about millions dying in Southeast asis b/c of the DDT ban
commented 2016-08-03 12:33:55 -0400
The Great Climate Change Bamboozle

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
H. L. Mencken

Earth’s carbon cycle contains 46,713 Gt (E15 gr) /- 850 Gt (/- 1.8%) of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred fluxes Gt/y (+/- ??) flowing among those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1) Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know?

Mankind’s modelled additional atmospheric CO2 power flux (W/m^2, watt is power, energy over time) between 1750 and 2011, 261 years, is 2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. (IPCC AR5 Fig SPM.5) Incoming solar RF is 340 W/m^2, albedo reflects 100 W/m^2 (/- 30 & can’t be part of the 333), 160 W/m^2 reaches the surface (can’t be part of the 333), latent heat from the water cycle’s evaporation is 88 W/m2 (/- 8). Mankind’s 2 W/m^2 contribution is obviously trivial, lost in the natural fluctuations.

One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et. al. 2011 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2. perpetual loop w/o work, 3. cold to hot w/o work, 4. doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net W/m^2 balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses included in the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming (+/- 12.3 W/m^2). Of course Dr. Trenberth says they are wrong because their cooling results are not confirmed by his predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years. (“All of the net TOA imbalances are not tenable and all except CFSR imply a cooling of the planet that clearly has not occurred.”)

Every year the pause/hiatus/lull/stasis continues (IPCC AR5 Box TS.3) IPCC’s atmospheric and ocean general circulation models diverge further from reality.

As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.

BTW I have a BSME same as Bill Nye so I’m as much a scientist as he is.

“The term Lysenkoism is also used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process (e.g. CAGW) as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.”
commented 2016-08-03 01:43:41 -0400
JACK PALLANCE… And not to forget the innocent millions more who died because of the DDT ban in South-East Asia… The same regions where the Greenpeace “gurus” are trying to ban the introduction of vitamin-laden “brown rice”…
commented 2016-08-02 17:52:22 -0400
It has been decades since Rachel Carson, and people, including Suzuki, still believe her tripe after it was shown that millions died needlessly in Africa after the DDT ban.

The investment the media, the political classes, and sadly scientists as well, have been put into this means it will take a long time to die.

I too find the term “denier” offensive.

But the whole effort is built on so many assumptions one has to just accept without the other side having to actually make the cogent arguments needed.
a)Is the earth really warming in any unusual way compared to past periods
b)If it is, is the majority of its causes really man made?
c) how much further warming do they expect to see?
d) at those assumptions of warming, will the net really be negative to human lifestyle and economics?
e) if it is a net negative, what will it take to make it net neutral
f) is that cost really worth it, or is it better to spend money to prepare for the eventuality

To even ask the questions make one a denier.
commented 2016-08-02 17:01:12 -0400
Excellent article.

It is sad that our decision makers are ignorant of the contents and will continue to make decision based upon a false premise.
commented 2016-08-02 14:23:49 -0400
DREW WAKARIUK commented: “How come the left is all worried about their grandkids when it comes to this BS , yet leaving them crushing debt to pay off is fine.”

EL BOW has promised that “budgets balance themselves”! What? It’s NOT true?
(Sarcasm intended)
commented 2016-08-02 10:12:14 -0400
Mike said: “I wonder if whistle blowers would be protected under the current government?”
Under the Libranos…I wouldn’t think so.
Gov’t workers would risk losing their jobs if they deny man-made climate change or go off script on the LPC narratives on refugees, ISIS, radical Islam, gov’t spending, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if the purge of high-ranking civil servants has spread to regular gov’t employees. I bet JT/Butts has people searching employee twitter and FB accounts for right-of-centre thinkers and those that believe in natural climate change over the man-made theory. Maybe they’ll be forced to take “re-education” classes in order to keep their jobs.
Those who don’t follow the narratives likely wouldn’t get support from their union either, since they’re in the back pockets of the Libranos. I used to be in a union, and believe me, there is NO freedom of speech when it goes against the leaderships’ views, in fact you could be “punished” like I and some of my co-workers were, for speaking contrary to union narratives.
But alas, Our Dear Leader is young, hip and pretty, so what he says and does must be right. No?
From the Librano dictionary: whistle-blower; (n) trouble-maker, racist, denier
commented 2016-08-02 02:42:53 -0400
Ken Martinson said: – “Bjorn Lomberg seems to miss the point that solar PV is now cost competitive in many parts of the world. Or at least, that is what i’ve been told.”… Ken, I would suggest that what you’ve been “told” is wrong… Solar power is still a “wishful” experiment wherever it has been tried on a large scale and an economic disaster as the Germans have now had to admit… Individuals who want to show their “green” credentials are welcome to pay for it out of their own pockets; and in some situations it may serve as a source of temporary emergency power, but trying to impose it on everybody is as nutty as Ontario trying to run its economy off of wind farms…
commented 2016-08-02 02:27:33 -0400
Yo Billy……l noted the sarcasm. On a side note…..shitty having to deal with those clones in civil service. To be fair I’m sure there is the odd one with dicenting views having to bite their tongue. l wonder if whistle blowers would be protected under the current government?
commented 2016-08-02 01:43:24 -0400
Billy Howard,
reread. Got it. my bad.
commented 2016-08-02 01:24:39 -0400
To whom it may concern:
Sorry, I guess the sarcasm in my previous message wasn’t obvious enough.
BTW, my nom de plume is because my private firm deals directly with federal and provincial governments and it wouldn’t be prudent to myself or my employees to disclose my conservative leanings and anti-narrative opinions.
And BTW, I don’t live in my mother’s basement, she actually accepted the offer to move into the basement suite in MY house.
commented 2016-08-02 01:24:38 -0400
To whom it may concern:
Sorry, I guess the sarcasm in my previous message wasn’t obvious enough.
BTW, my nom de plume is because my private firm deals directly with federal and provincial governments and it wouldn’t be prudent to myself or my employees to disclose my conservative leanings and anti-narrative opinions.
And BTW, I don’t live in my mother’s basement, she actually accepted the offer to move into the basement suite in MY house.
commented 2016-08-02 01:23:35 -0400
How come the left is all worried about their grandkids when it comes to this BS , yet leaving them crushing debt to pay off is fine.
commented 2016-08-02 01:22:39 -0400
More fact from Dr. Ball, the chicken littles of course had to alter their timelines as their BS was shown to be BS it was all ice gone in 13 years, now that it has not gone, they spout off 50 years. SAD! Anyone else remember the ICE AGE we were heading to? Me Neither, maybe we were all frozen and in a state of suspended animation, yeah that’s it.
commented 2016-08-01 23:38:51 -0400
Typo “The world was 2°C warmer”.
The map shows the world was 1 deg-C warmer…
Bjorn Lomberg seems to miss the point that solar PV is now cost competitive in many parts of the world. Or at least, that is what i’ve been told.
commented 2016-08-01 22:47:16 -0400
andy….what took you so long, my popcorn was getting cold? Been waiting for you to spew the usual rhetoric and/or regurgitate shit from the climate change zealots websites. Going to make more popcorn now. Keep it commin!
commented 2016-08-01 21:53:13 -0400
“15% of the world’s agricultural production is due to the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. What’s more, the global mean temperature has not been increasing for 19 years, and the slight warming expected from the emission of the infra-red absorbing gases is expected to be beneficial in itself. And contrary to the alarmists’ claims, ocean water is alkaline, not acidic. "

Global yields are up, although most of that is due to improved practices and longer growing seasons… which, in a way, is a product of higher carbon levels. The global mean temperature has increased sharply in the last 20 years, this claim originates because someone decided it was meaningful to use a freak event in 98 as a baseline. The average that year was much lower than subsequent years. The extreme point would not be exceeded for another sixteen years.

The ocean is basic, but its rising pH is still enough to perturb the balance between soluble calcium bicarbonate and insoluble calcium carbonate. Even though it’s nominally basic, it’s still increasingly corrosive to corals and other hard shelled creatures due to the nature of the underlying chemical equilibrium.
commented 2016-08-01 21:46:57 -0400
“pierre Chagnon commented 2 hours ago
An eco-leftist with some common sense, forgot to mention that from the past 18 years there has been no recognizable warming of the climate , "

That’s because it’s not actually true, it’s based on someone misreading a graph, an extreme point observed during the height of the strong 1998 El Nino event used as a baseline. The average has indeed continued to rise during this time. It’s like using a freak frost in early June to deny the onset of summer – a freak event does not a trend make. This year’s El Nino did yield a peak that was warmer than 98, although itself something of a freak event.

Frankly, the argument presented here, that the weather is warming, but that it’s within “natural” variations, holds a lot more water than specious arguments which arose because someone doesn’t know what an “outlier” is.