"Was 1934 the hottest year on record?"
No. Even if it had been true, events we've precipitated have overtaken this old #ClimateMyth, which found its roots in a peculiar set of circumstances.
This statistic was -always- irrelevant in the big picture:
"Zooming out of the USA - making up around 2% of the world's surface - to the whole globe, however, shows that 1934 was in fact a rather chilly year."
Finito. Done and dusted.
We've revised this #ClimateMythRebuttal.
What's the difference between the Little Ice Age and anthropogenic global warming?
Why doesn't the Little Ice Age (LIA) exculpate us from our climate oops?
Key terms: "little" and "global." Climate forcings acting together can produce powerful effects, but none so muscular as us.
We've updated our #ClimateMythRebuttal for this fizzled #ClimateBunk, now with at-a-glance treatment. Does it make sense? Let us know via the conveniently provided form at the article.
This week's #ClimateMythRebuttal refresh might be considered an appendix to last week's treatment of "hide the decline," a full explanation of the dendrochronological roots of the #Climategate fiasco. Critiques welcome!
There's basic irony in play here, given that recent divergence of tree growth from what's been typical for millennia seems to be our fault, while #ClimateScienceDeniers were going into a positive lather over a juicy pull-quote from stolen emails.
Sound and fury signifying nothing and called #Climategate erupted 15 years ago, back when coastal flooding was less of a nuisance, alpine glaciers were larger and old temperature records still held.
If we had perfect instrumentation we could probably measure Climategate's success in making things a bit worse today. Procrastination was always Climategate's destination-- and here we are, warmer than need be.
We've updated this #ClimateMythRebuttal; reviews welcome!
Like a falling calendar leaf in a vintage cinematic calendar montage, here's our weekly release of rolling #ClimateMythRebuttal revisions.
This time it's about confusing climate models with weather prediction. Despite claims to the contrary, imperfect weather prediction skill does not speak to #ClimateModel validity.
Even less helpfully for climate model detractors, with steadily increasing skills climate models are showing distinct promise with seasonal climatic prediction duties.
Not only is human-caused #ClimateChange settled science by consensus of experts on climate itself, but signals of consilience confirming accidental climate change abound via indirectly related fields of inquiry.
Still, politicians and other "thought leaders" fall back on "science doesn't really know" when discussing our climate mess- the laziest reply.
Updated: our explanation of how science "knows" who owns climate change. Opinions solicited!
The PDO, or Pacific Decadal Oscillation is not responsible for global warming, as plainly indicated by "oscillation."
Oscillations don't produce monotonic trends, one-way movement. But this hasn't stopped #ClimateScienceDeniers working on behalf of the multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel industry from trying to confuse the public with the PDO.
We've updated our #ClimateMythRebuttal on the PDO, adding our new at-a-glance treatment. As always, feedback is welcome!
#ClimateChangeDenial variations on a theme of variability: "it's natural cycles."
Many cyclic influences control climate, spanning from millennia to months. Normal wavering is ideal fodder for deceiving the public.
We're seeing the combined influence of the El Niño Southern Oscillation -and- human-caused climate change right now. Which "wins?"
We've updated our #ClimateMythRebuttal on a statistical deceit for hiding the obvious secular trend of #GlobalWarming.
Refreshed with our at-a-glance treatment: "Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles."
This #ClimateMythRebuttal addresses #ClimateDisinformation centered on "climate's always changing," misdirection leading to various inapplicable truths. Orbital forcings, ENSO and the PDO and flood basalts are a few exculpated #ClimateChange truths-- none matter now.
The "it's cycles" truth that matters in our current predicament: we've broken the carbon cycle.
Taking all sources together, the long term overall trend of Earth's albedo is that of darkening, in part a positive feedback of warming.
This doesn't stop mental magicians such as the notorious Anthony Watts from inventing whatever story is necessary for confusing the public, including putting an opposite sign on albedo's trend.
In reality several factors are leading to decreased albedo.
Feedback (+ or - !) on our update of this #ClimateMythRebuttal appreciated!
Based on the proxy indicator of weekly reads, "Arctic ice melt is a natural cycle" has never been a compelling nugget of #ClimateBunk.
Perhaps this is because graphs are starkly communicative. In this case if graphs of arctic sea ice were talking loudly 15 years ago, now they're shouting-- or screaming.
We've revised this #ClimateMythRebuttal, updating and simplifying. We'd love to hear your critiques via the easy-access embedded form.
Ponder anomaly baseline data.
"Was Greenland really green?" It's not exactly uppermost in everybody's minds but even so our explanation of what _really_ happened in Greenland during the medieval warming period gets its modest share of reads each week. These metrics are a proxy indication of confusion.
Our skilled wordsmith John Mason has revised our #ClimateMythRebuttal dealing with the local and brief period of Greenland's hospitality to Viking settlers. We're always delighted hear critique!
Let's take a journey through space to other worlds with #ClimateDeniers desperately seeking solace on lonely planets.
Confidently asserted while also claiming that we can't measure temperature trends here on Earth: "Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly."
Does this make sense? No, but it's still fair-to-middling in daily #ClimateMythRebuttal access at Skeptical Science.
Newly revised; critical review welcome!
"Is the CO2 effect saturated?"
"Irreducibly complex." Sometimes it seems true. Given the narrow infrared absorption bands of CO2, past a certain point how is it possible for more CO2 to increase impedance to infrared radiation passing through Earth's atmosphere? Reducing this "why and how" to a mentally portable payload is remarkably hard.
It's tough to convey how much discussion went into this revised #ClimateMythRebuttal. Does it work? Please tell us at the link!
Among other ways, abrupt climate change is noticeable to us as "extreme weather events," called so because they're far outside of our statistical norms-- and common understanding of how normal weather should appear.
Arguments to the contrary of our scientific expectations of increasing extreme weather are being swamped by reality. Hence we've updated our coverage of a fading climate controversy. How's our new treatment? Visit, read, let us know!
#ClimateMythRebuttal
https://skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-basic.htm?utm-source=mastodon&utm-campaign=socialnetworks&utm-term=sks
This week we reached a bit of a landmark by publishing our 25th updated #ClimateMythRebuttal, at one per week.
When we started this project in late 2022, we had two aims:
1) update old rebuttals as necessary, incorporating recent science developments;
2) do so in a structured manner, so that routine maintenance becomes more sustainable.
It's all about climate bunk, dealing efficiently with "Brandolini's Law." What's that, and how are we tackling it? Follow the link!
"'Empirical' is defined as something that may be actually measured and presented as a finding. Let's treat the topic as a criminal prosecution. The accused is CO2 and the accusation is that its increased levels through our emissions are warming the planet."
So begins our newly revised #ClimateMythRebuttal addressing "there's no empirical evidence" that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in warming.
Suggestions for improvements welcome, via an included form!
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-basic.htm?SkS+Mastodon
