Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

4 More Temperature Reconstructions Fail To Support The ‘Unprecedented’ Global Warming Narrative
By Kenneth Richard on 21. August 2023

Share this...
New studies find recent non-warming and/or a warmer Medieval Warm Period.

From 1785-2015 (231 years), the warmest 21-year period in India’s Himalayan region occurred from 1890-1910 (Rastogi et al., 2023). The years spanning 1995-2015 were the 4th warmest and 1946-1966 was the 2nd warmest period.
So, overall, the region has cooled slightly since 1890.


Image Source: Rastogi et al., 2023
Over the last 1000 years along Eurasia’s extensive Silk Road trade routes, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the Current Warm Period (CWP), as “the amplitude of the warming during the CWP did not exceed that during the MWP” (Chen et al., 2023).



Image Source: Chen et al., 2023
Temperatures in northeastern Asia are no warmer today than the 1800s or 1940s (Du et al., 2023). The warmest period in the Common Era occurred during Medieval times (830-850 CE).

In the last 170 years, 8 of the 10 coldest years occurred between 1965-2012.



Image Source: Du et al., 2023
A new study finds reconstructed temperatures in Iran align well with the “actual” temperatures for recent decades (1976-2014). And when the reconstructed temperature record is extended to 1657, the long-term trend shows no net warming trend in the last 357 years.



Image Source: Alipoorfard et al., 2023

 

New Study: Up To 87% Of Modern Warming Can Be Explained By Variations In Solar Activity
By Kenneth Richard on 4. September 2023

Share this...
Nearly all of the alleged anthropogenic link to climate change can be removed simply by exchanging and/or replacing biased temperature and solar activity data sets.
A new study authored by 37 scientists in the journal Climate finds using rural-only Northern Hemisphere temperature data (i.e., removing artificial, non-climatic urban heat effects) reduces the post-1850 warming trend from 0.89°C per century to 0.55°C per century.

Further, using a total solar irradiance (TSI) dataset neglected by the IPCC (Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, updated to present) allows TSI to explain up to 87% of modern warming.

Variations in cloud cover, albedo, and natural ocean circulations may also be factors arising from internal climate variability that could explain modern climate changes.

In summary, then, much of modern global warming’s alleged link to human activity may have been formulated by selecting data that align with the hypothesis, and neglecting or dismissing data which do not.



Image Source: Soon et al., 2023

 

Kind of an interesting pull quote from your study (not the folks trying to pass the study off as definitive).

 

Ah! A reference without a point.

Question is simple: YOU claimed that somebody was forcing you to buy ... something low quality (a car, I think). WHO is forcing you and how. Forum rules state that YOU make a point. References are used to support a point, not to make it for you.

You can quit now, we ALL know you were just making that up, so... Just don't do it again...

 

I've heard some say that engineering is trial and error. I don't know if that's true, but aerodynamics certainly is not.

 

Actually it is. If it wasn't, they would not build prototype aircraft. They would just design them, put them into production and fly them.

 

I'll comment on your other points soon, but I wanted to put the highlighted above to BING AI, so I put, at the prompt, the following statement and I am interested in your opinion of it's reply to your statement, (if you don't mind).

PROMPT: Is the following claim true? If not, explain, in detail, links to supporting evidence, etc.: "We are all at more risk from particulates and other toxins that result from fossil fuel usage than we are from [global] warming driven by CO2."

Note that Bing's AI reply has lines which are hotlinked to sources, followed numbered annotations, which to link to sources where the number '1' is already linked to in the line, if there are additional numbers in a sequence, they also link to additional sources. Also noting that the output can, at times, be wrong, or the source might not actually support the data point, but it usually does. AI will humbly stand corrected and apologies, when it is wrong, which is why I like working with it. It doesn't have an ego.

BING AI REPLY:

So, how did BING AI do? How would you rebut it's reply? (address the message, not the messenger [no ad machinam retorts]).

 

Ok. Most engineers I know feel insulted when somebody says their profession is just trial and error. They say it's a practical application of science. But if you claim to be an engineer and say that's all it is, I have no interest in disputing it. Especially because it makes no difference to anything I've said.

 

My point is that they test the flight characteristics of the aircraft before going into production. They will test its characteristics in landing configuration, high speed flight, stall statistics and recovery, spin characteristics and recovery, etc. All aerodynamic characteristics. And then they make changes to the aircraft. As good as the understanding of aerodynamics and computer simulation is, it is still trial and error.

 

Did you notice there are no numbers referenced for deaths from warming? Around 45,000 die from climate related and non climate related (earthquakes) disasters annually globally. Only a percentage of those are related to climate change. Annual deaths from natural disasters have fallen DRASTICALLY since 1900. Of course not always because of warming but in some cases because of warming.



I’ve already presented evidence temperature related deaths are decreasing. That leaves hunger as AI’s other concern. Around 9 million deaths occur annually from hunger. Again, only a fraction directly related to climate change. And another fraction of that fraction from CO2 driven warming. Deforestation, improper land use leading to desertification, overgrazing, etc. cause much of the hunger related to climate change but have nothing to do with CO2. In fact, if you are interested I can show you study after study showing ability to produce food increases with higher atmospheric CO2. Both from warming and from CO2 fertilization.

Nobody will make a claim on how much starvation is attributable to CO2 driven AGW. Because it’s not a large number and it’s impossible to determine. Most hunger occurs in the midst of geopolitical turmoil or civil war and can’t be attributed to AGW. Let’s be VERY generous and say half, so 4.5 million annually.

So with the deaths we can account for from CO2 AGW we have 4,545,000 deaths all together with the metrics AI mentions. We must subtract the 22,000 deaths prevented by warming reducing mortality related to cold and heat exposure. So a grand total of 4,523,000 annual deaths from CO2 driven AGW.

So just over half as many as die from fossil fuel pollution.

Now, why didn’t AI tell you this? It supposedly has access to all information I have. Why didn’t it account for that information.

I was very generous in attributing so many starvation deaths to CO2 driven AGW. And still we come up with my statement not only being correct, but by a wide margin.

AI gets a D- . Not only was it incorrect, it was deceptive because it did not account for any of the peer reviewed research my numbers are based on. It did not even alert you to their existence. It intentionally DIDN’T put numbers to the CO2 driven AGW side of the equation and it still claimed I was incorrect. You can’t say I’m incorrect without evidence.

AI also set up a strawman argument by going into atmospheric CO2 levels as a distraction and as something it could actually argue. Clever. But not an effective argument. It’s fallacy.

 

Sorry for going over your head. I've just never known another person who can't get that.

 

Did you examine Bing's sources, there were several?

Can you link the graph to the source? I need the source, thank you.

 

I looked at some of the citations from AI. The problem with the AI response isn’t what it included, the problem is with what it intentionally excluded.

The source is EM-DAT.

https://www.emdat.be/history

Our world in data also uses their data.

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-...t decades we have,500,000 since the mid-1960s.

 

I just scanned AI’s sources. I generally prefer peer reviewed studies but I understand why AI uses media and government. It’s what most people want to see. They seem accurate. I didn’t read the National Geographic one because I forgot my password.

That’s why I pointed out the AI response is fallacious. It addressed what AGW is. What atmospheric CO2 does. All the things that are irrelevant to my claim while completely failing to substantiate it’s claim mine isn’t accurate. Again, it should have access to the same information I have. Yet it fails to make the comparison. Probably because it knows the conclusion would conflict with the common narrative that is central to most of it’s media sources.

 

I don't think that is the fault of the AI, it's the fault of the prompt engineer (yours truly) since I'm not a climate scientist, there is no doubt more precise prompts that I could have employed to get a more robust result. You have to prod AI to get good results. You have to be detailed, you have to know something about the subject your prompting the AI about. I come up with great answers for subjects i do now about (such as music theory).

I'm getting a 404 error page. Can you find the link to the chart?

According to that chart, 1931 was the worst year for climate deaths. How do we know it was not exacerbated by the global depression?

If climate change is getting worse, then how is it that deaths from disasters are declining? that doesn't make sense, unless:

1. Building codes have strengthened buildings to they don't fall apart in extreme weather, and are thus killing fewer people
2. Advances in medical procedures.
3. Food availability in the aftermath of disasters where people who might have starved to death no longer do so.

My point is what, precisely, is the reason for the decline, because climate disasters appear to be increasing? or are they?

 

I think it's more of my fault, since I'm not a climate scientist, I'm unable to prompt a robust, detailed prompt. The prompt has to be robust, or AI will give you an anemic answer. It's a tug of war between trying to get AI do do work for you, but you have to do some work to get more out of it.

 

I don’t have a link to that exact chart but the Our World in Data graph is identical. Our world in data also has the one adjusted for population growth. I think I saved it from a Forbes article years ago but I’m not sure. The first graph I posted has the EM-DAT as its data source written at the bottom. But I don’t remember where it was published.

Yes, AI must be guided and trained in many cases.

The declines in disaster related deaths include the causes you listed. Another big one is advanced warnings we have today as opposed to in the past. Also, you mention food after disasters but water is even more impactful. Typically throughout history more people died of dysentery from polluted water sources after a disaster than died during the disaster.

Most of the evidence for increasing climate related disasters comes from studies focusing on economic damage. Many are flawed because they don’t account for differences in inflation rates between the CPI and real estate. They also use different data sets for older data than for newer data. For example, before satellites we missed many hurricanes that didn’t make landfall or that dissipated quickly from wind shear. Now we see them all from satellites no matter where they go or how long they last. Some hurricane studies conflate those two data sets.

Numbers of forest fires have been decreasing in the US and Canada over the last 30 years. In the US acres burned are increasing even though there are less fires. It’s more complicated and nuanced than what your television says.

 

That’s a fair point. Still seems odd it can come up with numbers for pollution but not for natural disasters. It should have treated both AGW and air pollution the same based on the question you asked. But it used fallacy in place of AGW numbers that are no harder to find than air pollution numbers. The math is simple enough.

At the end of the day you asked a straightforward question and the answer it gave was not factual and easily shown to not be factual.

 

No, only a carefully curated subset that supports the IPCC's politically based anti-fossil-fuel narrative can be accessed there.

 

I receive the Air Force Spaces Magazine. This article appeared;
“Rigorous testing is a critical step in the B-21 flight test program,” she said. “Extensive testing evaluates systems, components, and functionalities. This testing allows us to mitigate risks, optimize design, and enhance operational effectiveness.”
That is called trial and error.
B-21 Begins Taxi Tests in Last Step Before First Flight (airandspaceforces.com)

 

It could be fewer people are causing the fires because of social awareness raised by the historical fires, and the perception they are increasing, but the climate issue could be causing those fires that are being caused, to spread farther, to be longer, to be more intense. No? That would make perfect sense to me.

 

It appears you selected the results you desired and then constructed an argument to fit it. Now, that makes sense to me.

 

A fine misrepresentation of the facts. But then, you have to deflect from the actual science by any means necessary, given how all the facts contradict you.

Those who can discuss the science, do. Those who can't, they do what you do.

The science says the world is seeing record war

The science say the predictinos of the climate realists have been excellent.

The science says you and your pals have pooched it hard for 50 years running now.

Now, how do you plan to deflect from that? We all know you're going to deflect, after all. The only question is exactly how.

 

Someone is pretending not to know what "global" means.

But then, when all the data contradicts you, cherrypicking is all you have left.

 

Willie Soon.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Willie Soon literally rakes in millions from fossil fuel companies.

Every denier accusation is a confession. They're on the take, so they project their corruption on to others.