“Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’” The Guardian
“2016 was the hottest year on record” Is the very first sentence of the article. “a new high for the third year in
a row” it continues. A link is provided for support, but it leads to another Guardian article. Perhaps you could find some data if you followed enough links but I am quite sure it would be cherry-picked.
It might be true that 2016 was the warmest year of some records if you knew the
record they were talking about. It appears their record is from instrumental data from before the industrial era. That would be about the last 140 years. Probably the most unreliable record available, partly because of the methods of measurement. It would
be nice to know whose version of this data is being used. It has been massaged and adjusted in multiple ways by multiple organizations and no longer bears much relevance to the original raw data.
My data is from the UAH satellite temperature dataset which covers a 38 year period.
It might, arguably, be the hottest year in the satellite record but the margin is only 0.02ºC above the 1998 anomaly. The margin of error is 0.10ºC. The satellite record extends from 1980 and anomalies are calculated from the 1980 to 2010 average.
“Both 1998 and 2016 are anomalies, outliers, and in both cases,
we have an easily identifiable cause for that anomaly: A powerful El Niño Pacific
Ocean warming event.” Dr. John Christy
Near the end of the article, we find this statement “The new data shows the Earth has now risen about 1.1C above the levels seen before the industrial revolution” This statement may be true if we are confident enough in our records from before the industrial revolution and our measurements today. The fact that is missed is that this is a marginal temperature increase and
an outlier is being used to identify a trend. Probably this amount of warming would be totally unnoticeable if it happened throughout one day.
sees more rising temperatures and climate extremes, records show” Daily Mail
The Daily Mail headline is toned down somewhat and is less sensationalist. They do cite the WMO as their source.
The WMO (World Meteorological organization) is an arm of the UN and closely associated
with the IPCC. I think that their agendas might be a little questionable in that any evidence running counter to their dangerous climate change scenario is almost certain to be downplayed or ignored.
They show satellite-generated images to support the premise of low ice coverage at
the poles. Look closely. There are red, or orange lines, showing the average ice extent for the 1980 to 2010 satellite record. Are you still alarmed? Note that the satellite record is a very short period of geological time or even of human civilization. Daily information about ice at the poles is available at Arctic Sea Ice News.
“balmy weather in Canada” I live in Canada and we certainly did have some balmy weather, but we also had some
frigid weather. None of which seemed unusual to me. The warm bits were certainly welcome.
The last of the article was filled with unsupported statements obviously meant to emphasize the risks of a warming climate. As usual, there was absolutely no mention of possible benefits.
It would seem that many are still desperately trying to convince us of the reality
of a warming climate. Hey, we get it. The climate is warming a bit. We just don’t all agree with your end of the world scenarios. Cut out the sensationalism and try some balanced reporting for a change.
and unusual' climate trends continue after record 2016” BBC NEWS
one is better in that it immediately gives a link to the WMO press release as their source. This is the quote that I believe the headline is based on “Extreme
weather and climate conditions have continued into 2017.” Apparently, they felt the need to make the statement just a little stronger and more specific to climate.Climate alarmists have always insisted that weather incidents cannot be used as proof that the climate is not warming. I agree wholeheartedly. Then why are they using extreme weather incidents to imply that catastrophic climate change
The BBC has
not added any editorial or staff opinion and has simply reported quotes from WMO and others. The concern would be, that they never sought any opposing or more moderate input. The headline itself is presented as an unquestioned
Is global warming driving diabetes? Cosmos
This headline makes it sound like they are actually taking the cited study seriously. Purportedly published in BMJ Open Diabetes Research &
Care, I was unable to find any reference to the study at their website. Apparently, a study showing a correlation between temperature and incidents of diabetes.
As ridiculous as the conclusions appear, I have heard, or seen, it quoted from several sources. Next thing, we will be blaming a warming climate for our hemorrhoids.
headline found March 29, 2017.
"Changing jet stream, extreme weather linked
to humans: study" CBC news
First of all, this is a "study". Not an experiment nor observation. It is a study of data. A poor cousin of experiment or observation.
This is one of the credits. "We came as close as one can to demonstrating
a direct link between climate change and a large family of extreme recent weather events," said Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director, Earth System Science Center, Penn State. Remember "hockey stick" Mann? About as biased
a source of anthropogenic climate change as you could find.
This is the article in Nature,
which is presumably the source. "Both the models and observations suggest this signal has only recently emerged from the background noise of natural variability." is quoted directly from that article. Notice that the word "suggest" is about
the strongest reference to a conclusion that we find. In other words, they have teased out some data to support a hypothesis. I challenge you to read that article and actually make some sense out of it.
I also challenge you to find any justification for the CBC headline.
Scientists develop system that can convert air into water
way I know of to turn air into water is by adding hydrogen and setting it on fire.
The system referred to is designed to condense water vapor from the night air. The headline suggests
something akin to magic.
Reuters and the Globe and Mail are both highly respected sources but my faith in even the best has been much eroded by headlines such as this. How many times will children hear something like
this repeated by their parents or teachers?
Thousands of years of Arctic ice samples
destroyed after University of Alberta freezer malfunctions -- National Post
one is just misleading. First of all, it was 180 meters or so of ice cores that were melted, not years. They did represent proxy climate data for a period of years for an area of Canada. Thousands of years is way too imprecise. Is that 2 thousand or 999. Although
a loss, the data is not destroyed as it can be replaced with another coring operation. All that was really destroyed was ice that held climate data. Perhaps it is costly in time and dollars, but it is hardly the disaster implied by the headline.
Arctic sea ice may vanish even if world achieves
climate goal, study says -- CBC
Technically correct this simply gives the quoted article a little too much credibility.
"A 2 C rise would still mean a
39 percent risk that ice will disappear in the Arctic Ocean in summers, they said. Ice was virtually certain to survive, however, with just 1.5 C of warming."
That quote, to me, would
indicate no predictive value. Even at 60% I would consider the premise failed without further indicative evidence. But then, I am a better gambler than I am a scientist.
In the article, there is a subheading with the attached assumption made without any support whatsoever. It is just as likely that life becomes easier as a result of less sea ice.
"Arctic sea ice has been shrinking steadily in recent decades, damaging the livelihoods of Indigenous peoples and wildlife such
as polar bears"
If such a statement is unsupported it should at least be qualified with a word like "possibly."
Scientists blame global warming for new phenomenon called ‘river piracy’
From Global news.
Sometimes the headline writers manage to include outright lies. The only possible new phenomenon is the coining of the term "river piracy". Stream capture has happened in the past and in fact, has happened on this very
"Clague began studying this glacier years ago for the Geological Survey of Canada. He observed that Kluane Lake, which is Yukon's largest lake, had changed its water level by
about 40 feet (12 meters) a few centuries ago. He concluded that the Slims River that feeds it had appeared as the glacier advanced, and a decade ago predicted the river would disappear again as the glacier retreated."
"A technique published in 2016 by UW co-author Gerard Roe shows a 99.5 percent probability that this glacier's retreat is showing the effects of modern climate change."
The above quotes are from Science Daily.
This was changed to "The scientists calculate that there is only a 1 in 200 chance that the retreating glacier and river piracy is completely natural without man-made global warming." The doubling
of numbers, although technically correct, implies an increased certainty. All the scientists were stating is that some portion of the melt-back was caused by modern warming. Although implied, they did not even mention the man-made portion, the degree of which
is left open and could be any number between 0 and 99%. It could just as easily be interpreted to mean that some portion between 0 and 99% was completely natural.
Antarctic meltwater lakes threaten sea levels - study
From news 24 but used by other media outlets as well.
This headline is mostly just confusing. Probably not so bad
for most reporting, but science news would seem to demand a higher standard.
The article actually refers to two articles in Nature, one which seems to make a case for meltwater hydrology inducing instability in ice shelves and the other suggesting that it may help stabilize them. I only had access to lead abstracts
as the bulk of the published studies were behind a paywall. It did seem that the conclusions depended on a prediction of continued warming. It seems the data used in the study were aerial and satellite photos from about 1947 onward. there are links available
to some of these pictures in Nature.
The suggestion as to how this might affect sea level is rather vague. Apparently, the assumption is that the ice shelves may suffer a reduction
in size or mass, resulting in a faster movement of ice sheets into the sea.
People trust science. So why
don't they believe it?
From USA Today
This is an interesting headline, that could promote much discussion. It states as fact, premises that are not, in any way, established
as fact. “People trust science.” Well, it is likely that some people trust science and it also might be true that people trust some science, but it is not possible for the general statement to be fact. You can just as easily replace the previous
quote with the second sentence of the headline.
The headline also lumps all scientific disciplines together with an applied assumption that people believe or trust each equally.
Apply your own trust-ability index to each of the following, medical science, political science, climate science, social science. How about different types of science, experimental, predictive statistical, modeling, scientific studies or simply conclusions
drawn from physical observation.
Even scientists do not trust science. This is a good thing, or science would stagnate with the thinking that all knowledge has already been gained.
“The science is settled” is a statement often heard recently. This is a terribly unscientific statement that implies that no further knowledge can be gained. This is a real example of anti-science.
One thing that bothers me, is that so much science that is published today is the result of 'studies.' This is a process of collecting existing data and studying it to reach a conclusion. There is no way of knowing if all relevant
data has been included, if the data is actually sound or accurate, that no bias was inherent in the collecting or that all possible conclusions were considered. Although often represented as fact, the conclusions are usually no more than suggestions for further
study or better yet for experimentation with the goal of falsifying or confirming. There, I have identified a scientific method in which I have little trust and whose conclusions I do not often find believable.
How to be a Trusted Messenger on Climate Change
How to be a preacher. How to make
unsupported statements into believable facts even in the face of contrary evidence. Use premises that cannot be proven wrong, nevermind that they cannot be proven right either. Sound much like a tutorial on becoming a television evangelist? Totally about pushing
a belief system with no relationship to scientific reality. The author is primarily a marketer, with, as far as I can tell, no background in science. His business is to sell you on the need for expensive solutions to climate change. Of course, that requires
widespread concern for apparent dangers, which he must promote.
A Teenager Died After Drinking
Too Much Caffeine
This one is from Buzzfeednews
This is an opinion of the coroner, "On Monday, the Richland County Coroner ruled that he died from a "caffeine-induced cardiac event causing a probable arrhythmia."
I must stress that this is an opinion of one medical
practitioner, and is not established as fact. According to this coroner, the teen died as the result of a probable arrhythmia. All we have is a possible cause of death with only a causual link to caffeine. There is no way that caffeine can be directly blamed
as the cause of death even if that is implied by the coroner and the news source. This should not even have been reported without a bunch of qualifying words such as possibly or maybe. We have a highly unlikely relationship reported as fact.
This is not to suggest that caffeine is safe for children to consume in any quantity. There is a good reason why parents restrict coffee from their children.
NASA discover 'mysterious' man-made bubble surrounding our planet
From the Daily Star, May 19, 2017.
Apparently, this startling assumption of a man-made bubble comes from the speculation of one person.
“Director of the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, Daniel Baker speculates that if there were no human VLF transmissions, the radiation boundary would likely stretch closer to Earth.”
The imagery of a bubble is misleading in itself since it is really just a radiation boundary and is likely somewhat porous. Apparently, the boundary
has shifted to a position further from Earth than in the past. That would suggest it is not man-made but rather may have expanded as a result of a specific human activity. Of course, there could be many other reasons for the shifting. A correlation with VLF
broadcasts may be simple coincidence. Even the data may be a little suspect, as some is from satellites in the sixties (?) and recent data is from NASA Van Allen probes. The question mark is because I believe satellite technology was a little primitive in
the sixties. The first man-made satellite, ever, was “Sputnik” which sputtered into space in late 1957. (I actually remember watching it crossing the night skies)
The Star is a British tabloid but many other more prestigious media sources used similar misleading headlines. Surely the writers could come up with more realistic wordings.
Rapid greening of Antarctic Peninsula
driven by climate change
From ABC Online May 19, 2017.
Climate change is making Antarctica greener
Apparently, these headlines and stories are inspired by this source, Current Biology, which uses the headline “Widespread Biological Response to
Rapid Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula”
Notice how warming gets converted to climate change by the popular press. That changes a local observation
into a global phenomenon. Intentional, I think so. It manages to make a remote observation directly relevant to you.
The original article itself fails to explore causes
of increased growth other than warmth and available water. This in spite of the widely accepted idea that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has induced greening over the entire world. There are other possible contributors as well, such as fertilization or a
decrease in cloudiness. They are probably correct in assuming that some portion of the increased growth is a result of warming, but putting the entire blame on this one change would seem premature without further study and experimentation.
One thing that all the reporting fails to do is explain how this response by moss banks is a bad thing. I think it may show that plant growth and viability
are enhanced by a warmer environment as well as CO2 enrichment. How can this be anything but good for mankind and other animal life as well?