http://bit.ly/2RFC4Ww Judge: California Wildfires Caused By Uninsulated Power Conductors NOT Climate by Jeff Dunetz | Jan 21, 2019 | Climate Whatever you do PLEASE don't pass this post to Al Gore, or former California Governor Jerry Brown, it will make them cry. You see, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that equipment owned by [...]
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2CzhRHx
Monday, January 21, 2019
Judge: California Wildfires Caused By Uninsulated Power Conductors NOT Climate
‘Mikes Nature Trick’ Revisited- @ScottAdamsSays edition
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2W8CSBK
Flashback to 2004: The Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
By Paul Homewood
Paul Matthews reminds us that we are now only a year or two away from our new Siberian climate in Britain, at least according to the Guardian in 2004:
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority
https://cliscep.com/2019/01/18/climate-catastrophe-due-next-year/
Of course, we must not blame the Guardian. The Pentagon report was embraced by so-called eminent scientists such as Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office and Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
So it must be right then!
Better dig out my long johns!
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2U7iyia
Total Lunar Eclipse Time Lapse, January 20-21, 2019
I've been wanting to do this kind of time lapse of a lunar eclipse to show just how much change in brightness occurs when the full moon suddenly becomes nearly dark.
Most presentations of a lunar eclipse don't really capture the darkening, just the change in color as the moon transitions from being illuminated by direct sunlight to the weak sunset glow from the annulus of scattered sunlight through Earth's atmosphere.
I took three hours of photos, one every 23 seconds, at Little River Canyon, Alabama to make this. The camera setting was constant throughout (ISO640, f/5.6, 20 sec exposures). The temperature was unusually cold, 26 deg. F, low humidity, and there was a moderate wind out of the north. The video is best appreciated full-screen.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2DrFp2J
Analysis: ‘Climate Hysterics Skyrocket’ – Warmists trying to ‘outdo previous climate chaos rhetoric’
http://bit.ly/2HhSIql By Paul Driessen Call it climate one-upmanship. It seems everyone has to outdo previous climate chaos rhetoric. The "climate crisis" is the "existential threat of our time," Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her House colleagues. We must "end the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future." Former California Governor Jerry [...]
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2UaCG3f
Asteraceae species as potential environmental factors of allergy
Abstract
The statistics from Europe and the USA have proven a high risk for skin diseases associated with plant contact. Therefore, plant-induced dermatitis is of increasing attention in dermatology. The focus of this paper was to present the current knowledge on aspects of contact allergy related to Asteraceae (Compositae) species. The Asteraceae family is one of the largest in the world with members across all continents. The PubMed/Medline databases have been searched. The Asteraceae representatives consist of diverse secondary metabolites, which exhibit various advantageous effects in humans. In particular, sesquiterpene lactones (SLs) may cause sensitization resulting in skin irritation and inflammation. In this study, we tried to reveal the allergenic potential of several Asteraceae species. The Asteraceae-related allergy symptoms involve eczema, hay fever, asthma, or even anaphylaxis. Furthermore, the evidence of severe cross-reactivity with food and pollen allergens (PFS) in patients sensitive to Asteraceae allergens have been announced. Further identification and characterization of secondary metabolites and possible allergens in Asteraceae are necessary for the better understanding of Asteraceae-related immune response. The Asteraceae allergy screening panel (the SL mix and the Compositae mix of five plant species) is a promising tool to improve allergy diagnostics and therapy.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2FP6xKo
Genotoxic, cytotoxic, and neurotoxic responses in Anodonta cygnea after complex metal mixture treatment
Abstract
Environmental effects associated with the release of various metals even at maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) to the aquatic ecosystems are evident. In the present work, time-dependent increase in accumulated metals amount in gills of Anodonta cygnea after exposure to complex metal (Zn 0.1, Cu 0.01, Ni 0.01, Cr 0.01, Pb 0.005, and Cd 0.005 mg/L, MPC accepted for the inland waters in EU) mixture at various time points (1, 2, 4, 7, 14, and 28 days) was investigated. Statistically significant increase of Cu and Cd was determined in mussel's gills after 7-day exposure, in comparison to control group; moreover, significantly elevated concentration of Cu was measured and after 14-day treatment (in comparison to control and pre-exposure group). Concentrations of five (Cu, Ni, Cr, Pb, and Cd) out of 6 investigated metals were statistically increased in gills tissue after 28-day treatment. Moreover, complex metal mixture has demonstrated tissue- and time-dependent genotoxicity (∑Gentox) and cytotoxicity (∑Cytox) responses in mussels. After 4-day exposure, there were found the highest ∑Gentox levels in gills cells and haemocytes. Two-day treatment of mussels resulted in the highest and statistically significant induction of ∑Cytox level (in gills). Furthermore, after short-term (4 days) exposure, statistically significant inhibition of AChE activity in hemolymph of metal mixture–exposed mussels, in comparison to control and pre-exposure group, was found. Comparison of investigated responses in different tissue of A. cygnea discloses new information about metal mixture (at MPC) impacts at different treatment time. According to the obtained geno- and cytotoxicity data, it is suggested that gills are more sensitive tissue. Environmentally relevant trace metal concentrations when existing in mixture are able to cause adverse effects in A. cygnea; therefore, biological effects at different levels of organism are expected as a realistic scenario.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2RF7Rql
Does asymmetric nexus exist between agricultural land and the housing market? Evidence from non-linear ARDL approach
Abstract
Expectedly, urbanization is often associated with constant degradation of natural habitat. In most cases, as demand for housing increases, natural habitat like agricultural land, forestry, and water bodies gradually gives way to building structures. Against this backdrop, the current study investigates the asymmetric nexus of agricultural land and housing market vis-à-vis house prices. The study employed the yearly data from 1976 to 2015 for the case of Sweden and used economic policy uncertainty (EPU) as a control variable in non-linear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) approach. The finding notes a significant and positive short- and long-run relationship between housing price and agricultural land especially when there is a negative shock on agricultural land. But when there is a negative shock on EPU, the impact on housing price is significant and negative for both short run and long run. While an asymmetric long-run relationship is significant and positive between EPU and housing price, such significant occurrence do not exist for agricultural land. Hence, in meeting housing demand and mitigating an escalated growth in house prices, implementation of effective land use policy is encouraged.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2FFHJoY
Co-exposure to environmental endocrine disruptors in the US population
Abstract
Exposure to environmental endocrine disruptors (EEDs) has been linked to adverse health outcomes. The vast majority of studies examined one class of EEDs at a time but humans often are exposed to multiple EEDs at the same time. It is, therefore, important to know the co-exposure status of multiple EEDs in an individual, to preclude and control for potential confounding effects posed by co-exposed EEDs. This study examined the concentrations of seven classes of EEDs in the US population utilizing the data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2009–2014 survey cycles. We applied linear correlation and cluster analysis to characterize the correlation profile and cluster patterns of these EEDs. We found that EEDs with a similar structure are often highly correlated. Among between-class correlations, mercury and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and cadmium and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were two significantly correlated EEDs. In epidemiologic studies, measurement and control for co-exposure to pollutants, especially those with similar biological effects, are critical when attempting to make causal inferences. Appropriate statistical methods to handle within- and between-class correlations are needed.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2FMUaPc
The ameliorative effect of quercetin on bisphenol A - induced toxicity in mitochondria isolated from rats
Abstract
Recent studies have demonstrated that bisphenol A (BPA) has an adverse or toxic effect on the kidney. This study was designed to evaluate the ability of quercetin (QUER) to prevent BPA-induced mitochondrial dysfunction. Thirty-two healthy adult male Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups, as follows: control group (olive oil), BPA group (250 mg/kg), BPA þ QUER group (250 mg/kg + 75 mg/kg), and QUER group (75 mg/kg). All treatments were orally administered for 14 days. Kidney mitochondria were isolated by administration of the different centrifugation method. Uric acid and creatinine were considered to be biomarkers of nephrotoxicity. The ameliorative effects of QUER on BPA toxicity were evaluated by determining the glutathione (GSH) content, CAT, the damage to the mitochondrial membrane, the reactive oxygen species (ROS), and lipid peroxidation (LPO). Administration of BPA significantly decreased kidney weight. In the kidney, BPA can deplete GSH content and CAT activity, increase the mitochondrial ROS formation, and enhances LPO and mitochondrial membrane damage. The pretreatment of mitochondria with QUER has the ability to reduce the toxic effects of BPA in isolated mitochondria. These findings suggest a potential role for QUER in protecting mitochondria from oxidative damage in kidney tissue.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2FELEm7
Scotland: ‘ancient’ stone circle turns out to be from the 1990s
Easter Aquhorthies recumbent stone circle (genuine) in north-east Scotland [image credit: Wikipedia]
As a local official commented: "These types of monument are notoriously difficult to date." And fakes can be difficult to spot, it seems.
Archaeologists in Scotland were disappointed to discover a stone circle they believed was centuries old only dates back to the 1990s, reports Newsweek.
Researchers descended on the monument in Leochel-Cushnie, Aberdeenshire, in Scotland, when the current landowner reported the site to authorities.
Archaeologists heralded the site as authentic, adding it to the list of "recumbent stone circles"—a rare type of circle found in the local area.
But celebrations were cut short when the previous landowner told a representative of Historic Environment Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council's archaeology service that it was merely a replica, the council reported.
During their analysis of the site, archaeologists had noted it was relatively small and was missing some of the "cairn" or "kerb" stones one would usually expect. But the council said that this level of variation is not unusual.
Neil Ackerman, historic environment record assistant at Aberdeenshire Council, said in a statement: "It is obviously disappointing to learn of this development, but it also adds an interesting element to its story.
"That it so closely copies a regional monument type shows the local knowledge, appreciation and engagement with the archaeology of the region by the local community.
"I hope the stones continue to be used and enjoyed—while not ancient, it is still in a fantastic location and makes for a great feature in the landscape."
Recumbent stone circles, built some 3,500-4,500 years ago, are rings of rocks characterized by a large stone laid on its side between two pillars. Found in the north-east of Scotland, the Bronze Age rings are thought to have been built for astronomical purposes—to watch the movement of the sun and moon or to track the passing year, according to Forestry Commission Scotland.
Full report here.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2CvxHmc
Climate skeptics want more permanent U.S. exit from UN Paris climate accord – Future president could easily rejoin…Senate should defeat it as treaty
http://bit.ly/2HAF16b By James Varney – The Washington Times – Sunday, January 20, 2019 President Trump has announced the U.S. is withdrawing from the Paris climate accord negotiated by President Obama, but some activists say Republicans should do more and truly put the spike into it. They fear that if Mr. Trump was able to withdraw based on his signature, [...]
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2DqCMOI
New Study: Modern Warming Was Driven By ‘Primarily Natural’ Factors – Global Cooling Has Now Begun
New Paper: Modern Warming Was Driven By 'Primarily Natural' Factors. Global Cooling Has Now Begun By Kenneth Richard Four climate scientists assert (1) the last ~130 years of temperature changes fit "perfectly" into statistical indices of natural variation, and (2) a long-term deep cooling of the Earth system has recently commenced. Image Source: Mao et al., 2019 [...]
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2AQhDM3
Climate Ideology = Bad Nutritional Advice
Media Alarms: Eating Meat Heats the Planet
You may have noticed a media theme over recent months linking meat eating with climate change. The following examples come from the usual suspects.
Eating meat has 'dire' consequences for the planet National Geographic
Huge reduction in meat-eating 'essential' to avoid climate breakdown The Guardian
Eating Less Meat Essential to Curb Climate Change UN University
How Your Diet Can Save the Planet Fortune
Here Comes the Meat Tax;Paying more for environmentally harmful foods may be inevitable.The Atlantic
Combat climate change by cutting beef and lamb production CNN
World must slash meat consumption to save climate Phys,org
Will China's Growing Appetite for Meat Undermine Its Efforts to Fight Climate Change? SmithsonianMag
Skip the steak? Curb meat consumption to combat climate change Global News
Massive reduction in meat consumption and changes to farming vital to guarantee future food supply The Independent
Climate change: Report says 'cut lamb and beef' BBC News
A Radical Plan to Slow Climate Change: Eat Less Meat Bloomberg
Should there be a 'meat tax' to fight climate change? DW
Tackling the world's most urgent problem: meat UN Environment
Your meals are speeding up climate change, but there's a way to eat sustainably CBC
The origin of these alarms are studies published in Lancet, once highly reputed but recently given over to climate ideology rather than objective science. Most recently is Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems The preceding Lancet study stated this main finding:
Following environmental objectives by replacing animal-source foods with plant-based ones was particularly effective in high-income countries for improving nutrient levels, lowering premature mortality (reduction of up to 12% [95% CI 10–13] with complete replacement), and reducing some environmental impacts, in particular greenhouse gas emissions (reductions of up to 84%). However, it also increased freshwater use (increases of up to 16%) and had little effectiveness in countries with low or moderate consumption of animal-source foods. (here).
Two Major Objections
This post raises two objections to these claims. Firstly is an article exposing the Lancet biases and contradicting the the nutritional findings and recommendations therein. Secondly is an article exploding the link between raising animals and climate change.
Georgia Ede MD writes in Psychology Today EAT-Lancet's Plant-based Planet: 10 Things You Need to Know. Excerpts in italics below with my bolds. Title is link to full text which is recommended reading. Georgia Ede, MD, is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and nutrition consultant practicing at Smith College. She writes about food and health on her website DiagnosisDiet.com.
We all want to be healthy, and we need a sustainable way to feed ourselves without destroying our environment. The well-being of our planet and its people are clearly in jeopardy, therefore clear, science-based, responsible guidance about how we should move forward together is most welcome.
Unfortunately, we are going to have to look elsewhere for solutions, because the EAT-Lancet Commission report fails to provide us with the clarity, transparency and responsible representation of the facts we need to place our trust in its authors. Instead, the Commission's arguments are vague, inconsistent, unscientific, and downplay the serious risks to life and health posed by vegan diets.
1. Epidemiology = mythology
The vast majority of human nutrition research—including the lion share of the research cited in the EAT-Lancet report— is conducted using the tragically flawed methodology of nutrition epidemiology. Nutrition epidemiology studies are not scientific experiments; they are wildly inaccurate, questionnaire-based guesses (hypotheses) about the possible connections between foods and diseases. This approach has been widely criticized as scientifically invalid [see here and here], yet continues to be used by influential researchers at prestigious institutions, most notably Dr. Walter Willett. An epidemiologist himself, he wrote an authoritative textbook on the subject and has conducted countless such studies, including a recent, widely-publicized paper tying low-carbohydrate diets to early death. In my reaction to that study, I explain in plain English why epidemiological techniques are so untrustworthy, and include a sample from an actual food questionnaire for your amusement.
Even if you think epidemiological methods are sound, at best they can only generate hypotheses that then need to be tested in clinical trials. Instead, these hypotheses are often prematurely trumpeted to the public as implicit fact in the form of media headlines, dietary guidelines, and well-placed commission reports like this one. Tragically, more than 80% of these guesses are later proved wrong in clinical trials. With a failure rate this high, nutrition epidemiologists would be better off flipping a coin to decide which foods cause human disease. The Commission relies heavily on this methodology, which helps to explain why their recommendations often fly in the face of biological reality.
2. Red meat causes heart disease, diabetes, cancer…and spontaneous combustion
The section of the report dedicated to protein blames red meat for heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, obesity, cancer and early death. It contains 16 references, and every single one is an epidemiological study. The World Health Organization report tying red meat to colon cancer was also mentioned, and that report is almost entirely based on epidemiology as well. [Read my full analysis of the WHO report here]. The truth is that there is no human clinical trial evidence tying red meat to any health problem. I certainly haven't found any—and if there were, I think this Commission surely would have mentioned it.
3. Protein is essential…but cancerous
The commissioners write:
"Protein quality (defined by effect on growth rate) reflects the amino acid composition of the food source, and animal sources of protein are of higher quality than most plant sources. High-quality protein is particularly important for growth of infants and young children, and possibly in older people losing muscle mass in later life." [page 8]
Translation: Complete proteins are good because they contain every essential amino acid. All animal proteins are naturally complete, whereas most plant proteins are incomplete. Watch how the authors wriggle their way out of this inconvenient truth in the next sentence:
"However, a mix of amino acids that maximally stimulate cell replication and growth might not be optimal throughout most of adult life because rapid cell replication can increase cancer risk." [page 8]
Translation: Complete proteins are bad because they cause cancer.
The sole reference for this absurd suggestion that complete proteins cause cancer is a paper about mutations causing cancer in which the terms "protein," "amino acid," and "meat" each occur a grand total of zero times, suggesting that the Commission's suggestion is pure…suggestion. Furthermore, if obtaining all of the essential amino acids we need causes cancer, shouldn't we also worry about complete proteins from plant sources like tofu or beans with rice?
4. Omega-3s are essential…good luck with that
"Fish has a high content of omega-3 fatty acids, which have many essential roles…Plant sources of alpha-linolenic acid [ALA] can provide an alternative to omega-3 fatty acids, but the quantity required is not clear." [page 11]
If the Commission doesn't know how much plant ALA a person needs to consume to meet requirements, then how does it know that plants provide a viable alternative to omega-3s from animal sources?
The elephant in the room here is that all omega-3s are not created equal. Only animal foods (and algae, which is neither a plant nor an animal) contain the forms of omega-3s our bodies use: EPA and DHA. Plants only contain ALA, which is extremely difficult for our cells to convert into EPA and DHA. According to this 2018 review, we transform anywhere between 0% and 9% of the ALA we consume into the DHA our cells require.
Instead of being vague, why not responsibly warn people that trying to obtain omega-3 fatty acids from plants alone may place their health at risk?
5. Vitamins and minerals are essential…so take supplements
The drumbeat heard throughout the report is that animal foods are dangerous and that a vegan diet is the holy grail of health, yet EAT-Lancet commissioners repeatedly find themselves in the awkward position of having to acknowledge the nutritional superiority of the very animal foods they recommend avoiding.
If the commissioners are concerned that red meat is dangerous (which is only true on Planet Epidemiology), why not recommend other naturally iron-rich animal foods such as duck, oysters, or chicken liver for these growing young women, as these foods would also provide the complete proteins needed for growth? What about the 10-22% of non-teen reproductive age women in the U.S. who suffer from iron deficiency? And why a "multimineral preparation" rather than a simple iron supplement? Are they implying that other minerals may be lacking in their plant-based diet?
Unfortunately, the nutritional inadequacy of plant-based diets goes beyond B vitamins. Plant foods lack several key nutrients, and some of the nutrients they do contain come in less bioavailable forms. Furthermore, many plant foods contain "anti-nutrients" that interfere with nutrient absorption. This means that just because a plant food contains a nutrient doesn't mean we can access it.
An important example is that grains, beans, nuts and seeds—the staple foods of plant-based diets—contain phytate, a mineral magnet which substantially interferes with absorption of essential minerals like zinc, calcium, iron, and magnesium. And thanks to oxalates—mineral-binding compounds found in a wide variety of plant foods—virtually none of the iron in spinach makes it into Popeye's muscles.
Only animal foods contain every nutrient we need in its proper, most accessible form. To learn more about nutrient availability and how it affects brain health, read this article.
6. Making up numbers is fun and easy
How did the commissioners arrive at the recommended quantities of foods we should eat per day…7 grams of this, 31 grams of that? Numbers like these imply that something's been precisely measured, but in many cases, it's plain that they simply pulled a number out of thin air.
The commissioners attempt to defend themselves from criticism on this issue by stating:
"We have a high level of scientific certainty about the overall direction and magnitude of associations described in this Commission, although considerable uncertainty exists around detailed quantifications." [page 7]
If they are this uncertain about the details, how can they in good conscience prescribe such specific quantities of food? Why not say they don't know? Most people will not read this report—they will interpret the values in this table as medical advice.
7. Epidemiology is gospel…unless we don't like the results
Any researcher will tell you that clinical trials—actual scientific experiments—are considered a much higher level of evidence than epidemiological studies, yet Willett's group not only relies heavily on epidemiological studies, it favors them over clinical trials when it suits their agenda:
"We have used an intake of eggs at about 13 g/day, or about 1.5 eggs per week, for the reference diet, but higher intake might be beneficial for low-income populations with poor dietary quality." [page 11]
Why recommend only 1.5 eggs per week when epidemiological studies found that 1 egg per day was perfectly fine? And why skew your recommendations against low-income people, which make up a significant portion of the global population?
There is a remarkable paragraph on page 9 (too long to quote here) arguing that red meat was found to increase risk of death in epidemiological studies conducted in Europe and the USA, but not in Asia, where red meat (mainly pork) was associated with a decreased risk of death. Rather than grappling with this seeming contradiction, they simply dismiss the Asian findings as invalid, wondering if perhaps Asian countries haven't been rich long enough for the risk to show up yet.
Wait, what?
8. Everyone should eat a vegan diet, except for most people
Although their diet plan is intended for all "generally healthy individuals aged two years and older," the authors admit it falls short of providing proper nutrition for growing children, adolescent girls, pregnant women, aging adults, the malnourished, and the impoverished—and that even those not within these special categories will need to take supplements to meet their basic requirements.
Sadder still is the fact that the majority of people in this country and in many other countries around the world are no longer metabolically healthy, and this high-carbohydrate plan doesn't take them into consideration.
For those of us with insulin resistance (aka "pre-diabetes") whose insulin levels tend to run too high, the Commission's high-carbohydrate diet—based on up to 60% of calories from whole grains, in addition to fruits and starchy vegetables—is potentially dangerous. . . If the Commission read its own report it would find support for the notion that those of us with metabolic damage could be better off increasing our meat intake and decreasing our carbohydrate intake.
9. Pay no attention to the money behind the curtain
As an advocate of meat-inclusive diets, I have often been assumed to have financial ties to the meat industry (which I do not), but how many people stop to question the financial (and professional) incentives that may influence doctors promoting plant-based diets? We all have personal beliefs and we all need to make a living, but honesty with oneself and transparency with the public should be paramount. The Nutrition Coalition has compiled a list of Dr. Willett's potential conflicts of interest here.
The EAT Foundation, which collaborated with The Lancet to produce this report, was founded by Norwegian billionaire and animal rights activist Gunhild Stordalen. EAT recently helped to launch "FReSH" (Food Reform for Sustainability and Health), a global partnership of about 40 corporations, including Barilla (pasta), Unilever (meat alternatives and vegetable oils), Kellogg's (cereals) and Pepsico (sugary beverages). Make of this what you will.
10. No to choices, yes to taxes?
How does EAT-Lancet propose to achieve its dream of a plant-based world? Many suggestions are put forth, but two are worth emphasizing: the elimination or restriction of consumer choices, and taxation. The EAT Foundation describes itself as:
"a non-profit startup dedicated to transforming our global food system through sound science, impatient disruption and novel partnerships."
Sound science? Clearly not. But impatient disruption—what does that mean?
Regardless of how you feel about taxation as a tool for social change, consider the Commission's own numerous exceptions to the plant-based rules, including pregnant women, children, the malnourished and the impoverished. Should we really support making animal foods—the only nutritionally complete foods on the planet—even more expensive for vulnerable populations? The notion of taxation is followed by a vague reference to the possibility of "cash transfer" social safety nets for women and children. This section of the report is representative of its overall elitist and paternalistic tone.
I believe, because I'm convinced by the science, that animal foods are essential to optimal human health. This is an uncomfortable biological reality we all have to wrestle with as creatures of conscience. Finding ways to support excellent health and quality of life for the creatures we depend on for our sustenance and vitality is one of our most important callings as caring stewards of our planet and all of its inhabitants. But I'm also a firm believer in personal choice. We each need to become experts in what works best for our own bodies. Eat and let eat, I say. It seems clear that EAT-Lancet commissioners are neither supporters of personal choice nor the transparent distribution of accurate nutrition information that would empower people to weigh the risks and benefits of various diets for themselves.
Summary on EAT-Lancet
The EAT-Lancet report has the feel of a royal decree, operating under the guise of good intentions, seeking to impose its benevolent will on all subjects of planet Earth. It is well worth challenging the presumed authority of this group of 37 "experts," because it wields tremendous power and influence, has access to billions of dollars, and is likely to affect your choices, your health, and your checkbook in the near future.
Capitalizing on our current public health and environmental crises, the EAT-Lancet Commission pronounces itself as the authority on the science of nutrition, exploits our worst fears, and seeks to dictate our food choices in accordance with its members' personal, professional and possible commercial interests.
To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a human clinical trial designed to test the health effects of simply removing animal foods from the diet, without making any other diet or lifestyle changes such as eliminating refined carbohydrates and other processed foods. Unless and until such research is conducted demonstrating clear benefits to this strategy, the assertion that human beings would be healthier without animal foods remains an untested hypothesis with clear risks to human life and health. Prescribing plant-based diets to the planet without including straightforward warnings of these risks and offering clear guidance as to how to minimize them is scientifically irresponsible and medically unethical, and therefore should not form the basis of public health recommendations.
And What About the Environmental Benefits
Frank M. Mitloehner is Professor of Animal Science and Air Quality Extension Specialist, University of California, Davis. He writes at the Conversation Yes, eating meat affects the environment, but cows are not killing the climate. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
A key claim underlying these arguments holds that globally, meat production generates more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector. However, this claim is demonstrably wrong, as I will show. And its persistence has led to false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate change.
My research focuses on ways in which animal agriculture affects air quality and climate change. In my view, there are many reasons for either choosing animal protein or opting for a vegetarian selection. However, foregoing meat and meat products is not the environmental panacea many would have us believe. And if taken to an extreme, it also could have harmful nutritional consequences.
Many people continue to think avoiding meat as infrequently as once a week will make a significant difference to the climate. But according to one recent study, even if Americans eliminated all animal protein from their diets, they would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by only 2.6 percent. According to our research at the University of California, Davis, if the practice of Meatless Monday were to be adopted by all Americans, we'd see a reduction of only 0.5 percent.
Moreover, technological, genetic and management changes that have taken place in U.S. agriculture over the past 70 years have made livestock production more efficient and less greenhouse gas-intensive. According to the FAO's statistical database, total direct greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. livestock have declined 11.3 percent since 1961, while production of livestock meat has more than doubled.
Removing animals from U.S. agriculture would lower national greenhouse gas emissions to a small degree, but it would also make it harder to meet nutritional requirements. Many critics of animal agriculture are quick to point out that if farmers raised only plants, they could produce more pounds of food and more calories per person. But humans also need many essential micro- and macronutrients for good health.
The world population is currently projected to reach 9.8 billion people by 2050. Feeding this many people will raise immense challenges. Meat is more nutrient-dense per serving than vegetarian options, and ruminant animals largely thrive on feed that is not suitable for humans. Raising livestock also offers much-needed income for small-scale farmers in developing nations. Worldwide, livestock provides a livelihood for 1 billion people.
Climate change demands urgent attention, and the livestock industry has a large overall environmental footprint that affects air, water and land. These, combined with a rapidly rising world population, give us plenty of compelling reasons to continue to work for greater efficiencies in animal agriculture. I believe the place to start is with science-based facts.
Background: Previous Post on The Rise of Climate Medicine
With Bonn COP23 set to start next week, the media is awash with claims that climate change is an international public health crisis. For example, in just one day from Google news:
Climate change isn't just hurting the planet – it's a public health emergency–The Guardian
Climate change's impact on human health is already here — and is 'potentially irreversible,' report says –USA TODAY
Climate Change Is Bad for Your Health–New York Times
From heat stress to malnutrition, climate change is already making us sick–The Verge
As Richard Lindzen predicted, everyone wants on the climate bandwagon, because that is where the money is. Medical scientists are pushing for their share of the pie, as evidenced by the Met office gathering on Assessing the Global Impacts of Climate and Extreme Weather on Health and Well-Being (following Paris COP). Not coincidentally, the 2nd Global Conference on Health and Climate was held July 7-8, 2016 in Paris. Now we have the American Public Health Association declaring:
2017 is the Year of Climate Change and Health
"We're committed to making sure the nation knows about the effects of climate change on health. If anyone doesn't think this is a severe problem, they are fooling themselves." — APHA Executive Director Georges Benjamin, in The Washington Post
The new field of Climate Medicine is evidenced by a slew of new organizations and studies. In addition to numerous agencies set up within WHO and the UN, and governmental entities (such as the Met Office), there are many NGOs, such as:
Health Care Without Harm
Health and Environment Alliance
Health and Climate Foundation
Climate and Health Council
United States National Association of County and City Health Officials
Care International
Global Gender and Climate Alliance / Women's Environment and Development Organization
International Federation of Medical Students' Associations
Climate Change and Human Health Programme, Columbia U.
Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard
National Center for Epidemiology and Population Health, ANC Canberra
Centre for Sustainability and the Global Environment, U of Wisconsin
Environmental Change Institute, Oxford
London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, London, UK
International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, US National Academies of Science
US Climate and Health Alliance
Etc, etc., etc.
Of course, they are encouraged and abetted by the IPCC.
From the Fifth Assessment Report:
Until mid-century, projected climate change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating health problems that already exist (very high confidence). Throughout the 21st century, climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing countries with low income, as compared to a baseline without climate change (high confidence). By 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common human activities, including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence). {2.3.2}
In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (very high confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in exposed areas. {2.3.2}
Feared Climate Health Impacts Are Unsupported by Scientific Research
NIPCC has a compendium of peer-reviewed studies on this issue and provides these findings (here)
Key Findings: Human Health
• Warmer temperatures lead to a decrease in temperature-related mortality, including deaths associated with cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and strokes. The evidence of this benefit comes from research conducted in every major country of the world.
• In the United States the average person who died because of cold temperature exposure lost in excess of 10 years of potential life, whereas the average person who died because of hot temperature exposure likely lost no more than a few days or weeks of life.
• In the U.S., some 4,600 deaths are delayed each year as people move from cold northeastern states to warm southwestern states. Between 3 and 7% of the gains in longevity experienced over the past three decades was due simply to people moving to warmer states.
• Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics. Coronary and cerebral thrombosis account for about half of all cold-related mortality.
• Global warming is reducing the incidence of cardiovascular diseases related to low temperatures and wintry weather by a much greater degree than it increases the incidence of cardiovascular diseases associated with high temperatures and summer heat waves.
• A large body of scientific examination and research contradict the claim that malaria will expand across the globe and intensify as a result of CO2 -induced warming.
• Concerns over large increases in vector-borne diseases such as dengue as a result of rising temperatures are unfounded and unsupported by the scientific literature, as climatic indices are poor predictors for dengue disease.
• While temperature and climate largely determine the geographical distribution of ticks, they are not among the significant factors determining the incidence of tick-borne diseases.
• The ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content is not only raising the productivity of Earth's common food plants but also significantly increasing the quantity and potency of the many healthpromoting substances found in their tissues, which are the ultimate sources of sustenance for essentially all animals and humans.
• Atmospheric CO2 enrichment positively impacts the production of numerous health-promoting substances found in medicinal or "health food" plants, and this phenomenon may have contributed to the increase in human life span that has occurred over the past century or so.
• There is little reason to expect any significant CO2 -induced increases in human-health-harming substances produced by plants as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise.
Source: Chapter 7. "Human Health," Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2014).
Full text of Chapter 7 and references on Human health begins pg. 955 of the full report here
Summary
Advances in medical science and public health have benefited billions of people with longer and higher quality lives. Yet this crucial social asset has joined the list of those fields corrupted by the dash for climate cash. Increasingly, medical talent and resources are diverted into inventing bogeymen and studying imaginary public health crises.
Economists Francesco Boselloa, Roberto Roson and Richard Tol conducted an exhaustive study called Economy-wide estimates of the implications of climate change: Human health
After reviewing all the research and crunching the numbers, they concluded that achieving one degree of global warming by 2050 will, on balance, save more than 800,000 lives annually.
Not only is the warming not happening, we would be more healthy if it did.
Oh, Dr. Frankenmann, what have you wrought?
Footnote: More proof against Climate Medicine
From: Gasparrini et al: Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study. The Lancet, May 2015
Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings, published in The Lancet, also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.
"It's often assumed that extreme weather causes the majority of deaths, with most previous research focusing on the effects of extreme heat waves," says lead author Dr Antonio Gasparrini from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in the UK. "Our findings, from an analysis of the largest dataset of temperature-related deaths ever collected, show that the majority of these deaths actually happen on moderately hot and cold days, with most deaths caused by moderately cold temperatures."
Now in 2017, Lancet sets the facts aside in order to prostrate itself before the global warming altar:
Christiana Figueres, chair of the Lancet Countdown's high-level advisory board and former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said, "The report lays bare the impact that climate change is having on our health today. It also shows that tackling climate change directly, unequivocally and immediately improves global health. It's as simple as that.''
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2FLYKgB
Climate hysterics skyrocket
Increasingly absurd disaster rhetoric is consistently contradicted by climate and weather reality Paul Driessen Call it climate one-upmanship. It seems everyone has to outdo previous climate chaos rhetoric. The "climate crisis" is the "existential threat of our time," Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her House colleagues. We must "end the inaction and denial of science that…
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2RXxsKC
Adsorption studies of 17β-estradiol from aqueous solution using a novel stabilized Fe–Mn binary oxide nanocomposite
Abstract
The removal of 17β-estradiol (E2) from contaminated water on nanoscale Fe–Mn binary oxide-loaded multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs/FMBO) was evaluated in this work. The characterizations of the mesoporous adsorbent were analyzed by using SEM, TEM, VSM, XRD, XPS, and FTIR measurements. The effects of experimental conditions in E2 removal, including stabilizer additional level, adsorption time, initial E2 concentration, solution pH, reaction temperature, and foreign ions, were examined. The maximum monolayer adsorption capacity (qm) of MWCNTs/FMBO for E2 in the experiment was 47.25 mg/g as verified by the Langmuir sorption isotherm study. The adsorption process was pH-sensitive with an optimum pH of 7.0. On the kinetics study, the adsorption data could be satisfactorily fitted by the pseudo-second-order kinetics. Thermodynamic parameters indicated that the adsorption process was spontaneous and exothermal. In addition, the foreign ions did not show any noticeable inhibition for E2 removal from the water solution except for PO43− that was adversely affected for E2 uptake than other anions in a certain concentration. The adsorption capacities of the mesoporous adsorbent remained at 86.16% even after five adsorption–desorption cycles without significant loss of capacity, which demonstrated the stability and reusability for further removal of E2. Moreover, both hydrogen bond and π–π interaction might be the dominating adsorption mechanisms for E2 adsorption onto MWCNTs/FMBO.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2DrVkOn
CO2 and crops: NAS vs. science
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2U4fuDv
A survey of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in environmental water in Okinawa Prefecture of Japan and relationship with indicator organisms
Abstract
Surveys of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-pE) in stream water and untreated wastewater were carried out in Okinawa Prefecture, Japan. Thirty-six samples of water were collected from 18 streams in Okinawa Prefecture, as well as ten samples of wastewater flowing into four wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). We investigated bacterial species, Escherichia coli O antigen, ESBL phenotype, ESBL genotype, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) type of isolates, and total viable count and fecal coliforms as indicator organisms. The relation between indicator organisms and ESBL-pE was also validated using the same samples. A total of 141 ESBL-pE including 107 E. coli, 15 Klebsiella pneumoniae, 2 Proteus mirabilis, and 17 other species was isolated from stream water and wastewater. Of the 141 ESBL-pE, 14.9% and 54.6% were found to be blaCTX-M-15 and blaCTX-M-14-like types, respectively, which have been found in hospital isolates in Okinawa. Two pairs of possibly related patterns according to PFGE criteria were isolated from stream water and wastewater in two districts. When ESBL-pE was significantly isolated, total viable count and fecal coliform boundaries were ≥ 6.0 × 103 CFU/ml and ≥ 4.3 × 102 most probable number/100 ml, respectively. These results suggested that ESBL-pE isolated from stream water is human derived, and that total viable count and fecal coliforms will be useful as indicators for confirming the spread of ESBL-pE to the environment by means of simple hygiene surveys.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2S1lGPl
The Great Renewables Marketing scam known as “climate change”.
Another family friendly picnic day in Australia where nice people spend their leisure time advertising an industry worth more than $476,000,000,000.
A bunch of Australians do free corporate advertisingThey would kick themselves if they knew…
Blue Mountains residents to make 'human sign' for climate change actionThe message will say: Renewable energy, make the switch now, 100% renewables… imagine.
Blue Mountains residents will stand side by side to form the word "SWITCH" which will then be photographed from the air.
Imagine if this was an advert for Coke, or Exxon? It would be so much better. Coke and Exxon produce something that people want voluntarily.
One hundred years from now, people will look back and marvel at the Great Renewables Marketing scam known as "climate change".
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2CAGXpb
Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought?
An analysis of Cheng et al (2019), Science [i]
By Nic Lewis
There are a number of statements in Cheng et al. (2019) 'How fast are the oceans warming', ('the paper') that appear to be mistaken and/or potentially misleading. My analysis of these issues is followed by a reply from the paper's authors: Lijing Cheng, John Abraham, Zeke Hausfather and Kevin Trenberth.
Plain language summary
Contrary to what the paper indicates:
- Contemporary estimates of the trend in 0–2000 m depth ocean heat content over 1971–2010 are closely in line with that assessed in the IPCC AR5 report five years ago
- Contemporary estimates of the trend in 0–2000 m depth ocean heat content over 2005–2017 are significantly (> 95% probability) smaller than the mean CMIP5 model simulation trend.
Ocean warming over 1971–2010 per IPCC AR5 and contemporary estimates
1. The paper states: "The warming is larger over the 1971–2010 period than reported in AR5. The OHC trend for the upper 2000 m in AR5 ranged from 0.20 to 0.32 Wm−2 during this period (4: AR5). The three more contemporary estimates that cover the same time period suggest a warming rate of 0.36 ± 0.05 (6: Ishii ), 0.37 ± 0.04 (10: Domingues), and 0.39 ± 0.09 (2: Cheng) Wm−2." [Numbered references in this article are to the same numbered references in the paper. The number is followed by the lead author's name, or AR5, where this aids clarity.]
2. AR5 (4) featured 0–700 m depth ocean heat content (OHC) 1971-2010 linear trend estimates from five studies, ranging from 0.15 to 0.27 Wm−2 of the Earth's surface. Adding the AR5 700–2000 m OHC 1971-2010 trend estimate of 0.09 Wm−2 brings the range up to 0.24 to 0.36 Wm−2 , not to 0.20 to 0.32 Wm−2 as stated. The warming rates plotted in Supplementary Figure S1 agree to my values, not to those stated in the paper.
3. Importantly, although AR5 featured several OHC trend estimates for 0–700 m depth, its assessment of the Earth's energy uptake (Section 3.2.3 and Box 3.1) used only the highest one (10: Domingues), adding the Levitus (12) 700–2000 m OHC trend to give a best estimate 0–2000 m warming rate over 1971–2010 of 0.36 Wm−2. That rate is identical to one (6: Ishii) of the three more contemporary estimates given in the paper and extremely close to the other two of them – within the innermost one-third of their uncertainty ranges.
See Figure 1, left hand section, and compare with the 'Updated OHC estimates compared with AR5' figure [Fig 2] in the paper. It is therefore misleading to claim that the warming is larger over the 1971–2010 period than reported in AR5.
4. Moreover, over the final decade covered by AR5, 2002–2011, the trend of the 0–2000 m OHC time series that AR5 adopted for its assessment, 0.60 Wm−2, was noticeably higher than those for two of the three more contemporary estimated OHC datasets given in the paper (0.35 (6: Ishii) and 0.52 (2: Cheng) Wm−2) and, unsurprisingly, almost identical to the third (10: Domingues + 12: Levitus).
Figure 1: Updated 0–2000 m OHC linear trend estimates compared with AR5 and the CMIP5 mean. Error bars are 90% confidence intervals; black lines are means. Units relate to the Earth's entire surface area.
Ocean warming over 2005–2017 per CMIP5 models and contemporary estimates
5. The paper's 'Past and future ocean heat content changes' figure [Fig 1] caption states: "Annual observational OHC changes are consistent with each other and consistent with the ensemble means of the CMIP5 models for historical simulations pre-2005 and projections from 2005–2017, giving confidence in future projections to 2100 (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5)." This does not appear to be true for the linear trends of the annual values for the 2005–2017 projections, at least.
The main text states: "Over this period (2005–2017) for the top 2000 m, the linear warming rate for the ensemble mean of the CMIP5 models is 0.68 ± 0.02 Wm−2, whereas observations give rates of 0.54 ± 0.02 (2), 0.64 ± 0.02 (10), and 0.68 ± 0.60 (11) Wm−2."
6. Five problems with this claim regarding 2005–2017 warming rates are:
(i) the CMIP5 RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 projections top 2000 m OHC data archived for the paper shows an ensemble-mean linear warming rate over 2005–2017 of 0.70 ± 0.03 Wm−2, not 0.68 ± 0.02 Wm−2. The same is true when also including data from the third scenario used in the paper (RCP4.5).
(ii) the underlying time series from which the third observational estimate is derived (Fig. 3.b in 11: Resplandy) spans 1991–2016, and has a lower (and highly uncertain) linear trend from 2005 to 2016 (its final year) than the stated 0.68 Wm−2 (which is calculated over 1991–2016), so this estimate should be excluded;
(iii) the statement inexplicably omits the Ishii et al. (6) observational data, which also have a lower estimated trend (0.62 ± 0.07 Wm−2) than per CMIP5 over this period; and
(iv) the uncertainty range for the Cheng (2) estimate appears to be seriously understated: I calculate that the estimate should be 0.54 ± 0.06 (rounding 0.055 up), not 0.54 ± 0.02.
(v) adding the uncertainty ranges in quadrature, since CMIP5 and observational errors are independent, the CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is statistically inconsistent with the all three of these observational trend estimates (2: Cheng, 6: Ishii, 10: Domingues);
The right hand section of Figure 1 shows a corrected comparison of CMIP5 mean and observational 0–2000 m depth ocean warming rates over 2005–2017.
7. Although it is pointed out in the paper's Supplementary material that volcanic eruptions after 2000 have not been taken into account in CMIP5 models (with a minor effect on projected warming since then), it has been shown that when underestimation of other growth in other drivers of climate change is accounted for there is no overall bias in post-2000 CMIP5 model forcing growth (Outten et al. 2015).
Other issues
8. The straight black line in the 'Past and future ocean heat content changes' figure [Fig 1] for the Resplandy et al. (11) OHC estimate gives a misleading impression of close agreement with the three OHC time series based on in situ observations over 1991–2016: its trend uncertainty range is so large (0.08 to 1.28 Wm−2) that the apparent close agreement is most likely due to chance.
9. The Press release for the paper claimed that 'If no actions are taken ("business as usual"), the upper ocean above 2000 meters will warm by 2020 ZetaJoules by 2081-2100″, which is based on CMIP5 model RCP8.5 scenario simulations. That is misleading. RCP8.5 involves not only no actions (including those already carried out) being taken, but also emissions being unusually high for a business as usual scenario.[ii]
Nicholas Lewis January 2019
[i] The paper does not directly claim that ocean warming is accelerating faster than thought; that is the headline of The New York Times article about the paper.
[ii] As the source paper (Riahi, K., et al., 2011: RCP 8.5–A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y) states: "RCP8.5 combines assumptions about high population and relatively slow income growth with modest rates of technological change and energy intensity improvements, leading in the long term to high energy demand and GHG emissions in absence of climate change policies.", and that "[RCP] 8.5 corresponds to a high greenhouse gas emissions pathway compared to the scenario literature". As Riahi et al. (2011) make clear, the assumed energy intensity improvement rates are only about half the historical average while middling world GDP growth is assumed, leading to coal use increasing almost 10 fold by 2100.
References
2. L. Cheng et al., Sci. Adv. 3, e1601545 (2017).
4. M. Rhein et al., in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013), pp. 215–315.
6. M. Ishii et al., Sci. Online Lett. Atmos. 13, 163 (2017).
10. C. M. Domingues et al., Nature 453, 1090 (2008).
11. L. Resplandy et al., Nature 563, 105 (2018).
12. S. Levitus et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L10603 (2012).
Additional references
Cheng, L., Abraham, J., Hausfather, Z. and Trenberth, K.E. (2019). How fast are the oceans warming?. Science, 363(6423), pp.128-129.
Outten, S., P. Thorne, I. Bethke, and Ø. Seland (2015), Investigating the recent apparent hiatus in surface temperature increases: 1. Construction of two 30-member Earth System Model ensembles, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 120, doi:10.1002/2015JD023859
Lijing Cheng has asked me to post also the following reply from the paper's authors to my critique. I am pleased to do so and I thank him for providing it. I have replaced interspersed text extracted from my article with paragraph number references. The authors' responses are shown in blue. I have appended my comments, shown in red, on a number of them.
Paragraphs 1 and 2
Some questions have been raised concerning the numbers in our article (…) and indeed there is an inconsistency between a value in the supplementary material and the main text. It relates to the use of linear trends and how to assign a change over various periods. For longer time intervals, a linear trend is not a good fit to the data and use of that to assign a change can be misleading. In the IPCC AR5, below 700m depth, it is stated that "the heating below 700 m is 62 TW for 1971-2010". They also state "For the ocean from 2000 m to bottom, a uniform rate of energy gain of 35 [6 to 61] TW from warming rates centred on 1992–2005 (Purkey and Johnson, 2010) is applied from 1992 to 2011, with no warming below 2000 m assumed prior to 1992." Hence the difference for the 700 to 2000 m layer is 62 -35 = 27 TW. This is 0.05 W m-2 and is what was used in the main text to produce the numbers quoted. However, if instead one takes the 2 flat lines below 2000 m and subtracts from the actual values, and then fits a linear trend, the implied change is closer to 45 TW which gives the 0.09 W m-2 plotted in Fig. S1. If the latter is used instead, then the change from the old AR5 values to the newer OHC values is somewhat reduced (see figure below). The increase is up to 40% over the prior IPCC estimates, and the average is 24%. This exercise was prompted by a comment by Nic Lewis who we thank, and it highlights the uncertainty in actual trends and their use to depict changes. The conclusions in our Perspective remain sound. If the alternative analysis method proposed by Nic Lewis is used, the change is not quite as dramatic as implied in some of the associated press releases.
Based on this:
- While there is an inconsistency that is not discussed between Fig. 2 and Fig S1, it reflects the uncertainties in previous OHC estimates and the associated methods. In particular, some values before 1980 or so are erratic (high values in the 1960s) and a linear trend is not a good fit to the time series.
- All of our key points are still valid: (1) the best estimates are collectively higher than the 5 estimates featured in AR5 (0-63% higher). (2). And the best estimates are more consistent with each other (0.36/0/37/0.39 Wm−2 than 0.24~0.36 Wm−2 in AR5). (3). Model ensemble means are higher than 5 estimates featured in AR5 (0.39 Wm−2, 8-63% higher) and consistent with new/updated observations.
- AR5-Box 3.1 used the strongest estimate without backup literature, we state this in the supplement (also read our replies below). So our study justifies the choice in Box 3.1 as we discussed in supplement. The new estimates could be 0-8% stronger than the selected estimate by AR5-Box 3.1 for 1971-2010. But we didn't make claims regarding Box 3.1 in Science article, so this is not an issue.
- This would be an adjusted Fig. 2 (plot below) if we used the different value, the key messages do not change:
Additionally, the Domingues value for 0-700m should have extremely large error bars: all of the values prior to 1970 are much higher than from 1970 to 1980 in AR5, (see AR5 Figure 3.2; given also below) and hence the trends for that estimate are extremely dependent on the period used. Whether that value was used or not in AR5 (and we state it was), the AR5 message is that they really didn't know the value at all well, and now we do.
Nic Lewis comments:
a) Their arguments justifying their deduction of 35 TW from the AR5 1971–2010 linear trend below- 700 m ocean heating rate to give their 700–2000 m layer heating rate of 27 TW (0.053 Wm−2) make no sense. AR5 arrived at its sub-700 m deep OHC time series (plotted in Box 3.1 Figure 1) by adding, from 1992 onwards, { (year – 1991) * 1.10 ZJ } to its estimate of 700–2000 m depth OHC [1.10 ZJ / year = 35 TW].
The only correct way to derive the AR5 700–2000 m depth OHC time series is to take its sub-700 m OHC time series and reverse out this addition, which is what I did. Cheng et al.'s method gives the wrong 1971–2010 rate of 700–2000 m depth ocean heating irrespective of whether this is measured by a linear trend or otherwise.
b) Their explanation of the inconsistency between their Fig 2 and their Fig S1 conflicts with the facts. They imply in the supplementary material that for both figures the warming rates are linear trends from an ordinary least squares (OLS) fit. Whether or not an OLS fit is ideal is irrelevant; it is what AR5 did and is what Cheng et al. indicated they did. I have verified that their Fig S1 estimates agree to OLS fits to their data. It is undeniable that the AR5 warming rates plotted in their Fig 2 are erroneous.
c) Numerical simulations using strongly autocorrelated random errors confirm that the 1971–2010 trend uncertainty for the Domingues 0–700 m OHC trend stated in AR5, which is incorporated in the AR5 0–2000 m trend uncertainty plotted in my Fig 1, appears to adequately reflect the large uncertainty that AR5 showed the Domingues estimates as having in pre-Argo years (which dominates the uncertainty shown in Box 3.1 Fig 1).
Paragraph 3
Please read our supplement, we fully describe the whole story as follows :
"IPCC-AR5 (1) featured five estimates for OHC within 0-700m including Levitus et al. (2) (LEV), Ishii et al. (3) (ISH), Domingues et al. (4) (DOM), Palmer et al. (5) (PAL), Smith and Murphy (6) (SMT), one estimate for 700-2000m: Levitus et al. (2) (LEV) and one estimate below 2000 m: Purkey and Johnson (7) (PG). For the Earth's energy budget inventory (Box 3.1 in Ref. (1)) and other places, DOM, LEV and PG are used for 0-700m, 700-2000m, and below 2000m respectively. Among the five 0-700m OHC estimates in AR5, the minimum yields an ocean warming of 74 [43 to 105] TW (SMT) within 1971-2010, which is almost half of the maximum, with a rate of OHC change of 137 [120 to 154] TW (DOM). If all of five estimates are treated equally, a huge error bar has to be put in the final OHC estimate, downplaying the reliability of OHC records.
AR5 chose the DOM estimate to assess Earth's energy budget, rather than any others or an ensemble mean of the five featured estimates by stating:
'Generally the smaller trends are for estimates that assume zero anomalies in areas of sparse data, as expected for that choice, which will tend to reduce trends and variability. Hence the assessment of the Earth's energy uptake (Box 3.1) employs a global UOHC estimate (Domingues et al., 2008) chosen because it fills in sparsely sampled areas and estimates uncertainties using a statistical analysis of ocean variability patterns.'
In this way, the 'conservative error' of many estimates has been identified in AR5 but not supported by the literature. Since AR5, many studies have been looked into this issue either directly or indirectly (8-13) and several new/revised estimates are available, and are chosen by our study.
For OHC within 0-700m, the new CHG and ISH estimates are consistent with DOM (Figure S1). The three estimates are collectively higher than LEV/ISH/PAL/SMT featured in AR5 (Figure S1). Therefore, the progress after AR5 justifies the choice of DOM in AR5 for OHC 0-700m."
We note that the AR5 featured five different OHC estimates available at the time in the main body of their assessment and the main figure (Fig. 3.2), shown below. We feel that this justifies comparing newer OHC estimates to all five series, rather than just the Domingues series that the AR5 chose to highlight.
Additionally, when the 700-2000m values from Levitus are used (as discussed above), recent records still show 0% to 8% more warming over the 1971-2010 period than the AR5 Domingues value: 0.36 ± 0.05 (Ishii), 0.37 ± 0.04 (Domingues+Levitus), and 0.39 ± 0.09 (Cheng) compared to the old Domingues value of 0.36 Wm−2.
Incidentally, since we have this figure here: note the big bump in Domingues in the top panel in the 1950s and 60s. Also note the bump in the 1970s in the 700 to 2000 m layer.
Nic Lewis comments:
None of these points affects what I say in my article. The paper says " These recent observation-based OHC estimates show highly consistent changes since the late 1950s (see the figure). The warming is larger over the 1971–2010 period than reported in AR5. The OHC trend for the upper 2000 m in AR5 ranged from 0.20 to 0.32 W m−2 during this period (4)." Since the figure referred to shows only 0–2000 m OHC, it is implicit that " The warming is larger over the 1971–2010 period" in the next sentence refers to warming in the 0–2000 m ocean layer. AR5 only featured 0–700 m OHC dataset other than Domingues when discussing warming of that ocean layer; it did not use any of them to estimate warming over 0–2000 m .
Paragraph 4
The period from 2002-2011 seems somewhat arbitrary, and we chose to focus on the 1971-2010 period as it was the one specifically highlighted in the AR5. We would expect greater agreement between older and newer estimates of OHC changes after around 2005 (when Argo data begins being available), as corrections of XBT measurements and better spatial interpolation approaches – which were the primary changes made to newer OHC datasets – matter much more prior to the early 2000s. And there is a better agreement after 2005, Johnson et al. 2018 BAMS state of climate show this already. We do give updated values for 2005-2017 (Argo period) for comparison with CMIP5.
Further, we could see the time series plot similar to AR5-Fig.3.2 below, the new time series apparently show better consistency than AR5-Fig. 3.2 among estimates.
Figure. Times series of OHC 0-2000m for the four best estimates compared with CMIP5 model ensemble mean and two-sigma model spread.
Nic Lewis comments:
My paragraph 4 is simply an observation; it does not claim to point to any mistake in the paper. Nor does it bear on my point that it is misleading to claim that the warming is larger over the 1971–2010 period than reported in AR5.
Paragraph 5
First, 2005-2017 is a short period, there are many uncertainties: 1) There are short-term variability in the time series (i.e. Interannual variability such as ENSO) and uncertainty in observations, these can impact the trend calculation in a short period within 2005-2017; 2) CMIP5 models do not contain natural variability in phase with actual natural variability, and 3) do not contain realistic forcings after 2005. We discuss this in some detail in supplement:
"We show in the main text that over the period of 2005-2017, the linear warming rate for the ensemble mean of the CMIP5 models is 0.68±0.02 W m-2, slightly larger than the observations (ranging from 0.54±0.02 to 0.64±0.02). Many studies, including Gleckler et al. (13) and Schmidt et al. (16) have shown that the volcanic eruptions after 2000 have not been taken into account in CMIP5 models. Taking this into account, the Multi-Model-Average of CMIP5 simulations will be more consistent with observations during the recent decade (13)."
Gleckler et al. 2016 explicitly addressed the volcano impacts in ocean heat content comparison between model and observations, after Outton et al. 2015, they suggested a correction for a global volcanic aerosol forcing since 2000 of 0.19±0.09 Wm−2.
Nic Lewis comments:
None of this is relevant to my point that the claim in the caption to Fig 1 of the paper that "Annual observational OHC changes are consistent with each other and consistent with the ensemble means of the CMIP5 models for historical simulations pre-2005 and projections from 2005–2017" is contradicted by the differences in the linear trends of the data involved over 2005–2017, having regard to the trend uncertainty ranges.
Paragraph 6
(i) As we point out in the supplementary materials (figure caption) "CMIP5 results (historical runs from 1971 to 2005 and RCP4.5 from 2006 to 2010) are indicated by the green bar". Using CMIP5 historical + RCP4.5 runs gives us 0.68 ± 0.02 Wm−2. We could have been clearer in the main paper which RCP runs were shown in the trends comparison part of the figure; we did in earlier drafts of the article but it was cut at the suggestion of the editors at Science to shorten/simplify the figure caption.
(ii) Resplandy explicitly state in their paper that the trustable estimate is the linear trend, rather than annual values, because the O2 and CO2 changes on annual scales are not primarily driven by temperature. Hence we only use their linear trend (the revised version shown in Real Climate).
(iii) Earlier drafts of the paper did include the Ishii estimate, though it was omitted from the final version due to length constraints as it fell between the 0.54 (Cheng) and 0.64 (Dom/Lev) instrumental estimates noted. We should have made this clearer (e.g. mention that instrumental estimates range from 0.54 to 0.64), although its exclusion here does not impact any of our conclusions. As the 0.62 Ishii estimate is closer to the Dom/Lev than Cheng, its inclusion would make the overall range of instrumental estimates seem closer to CMIP5 over this period.
(iv) We used the error calculation presented in Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, which takes accounts of the autocorrelations in a time series.
OHC_errorbar=1.65*OHC_se*sqrt(v)
Where:
- OHC_se is standard error using OLS.
- v=1+2*p1/(1-q)
- p1=OHC_autocorrelation(2)
- q= OHC_autocorrelation(3) / OHC_autocorrelation(2)
- OHC_autocorrelation is the autocorrelation of the time series.
Using this method, we can replicate the error bar provided by AR5, so it should be nearly identical to AR5 method.
We also get 0.06 uncertainty range for Cheng (2) if simply using OLS method. But this does not impact the comparison between new/updated observations and model.
(v) The four new/updated best estimates are 0.54, 0.62, 0.64, and 0.68 Wm-2. The CMIP5 historical + RCP4.5 model ensemble mean is 0.68 Wm-2. If we focus on instrumental estimates (and exclude Resplandy et al given its large uncertainties), the CMIP5 models are a bit higher than observations during the Argo era, although, as we discuss in the Supplementary Materials and our previous replies, mismatches between projected and observed forcings in the forecast period are expected to give differences over this period.
Nic Lewis comments:
(i) No indication is given in the paper or the supplementary material that "the linear warming rate for the ensemble mean of the CMIP5 models" for the top 2000 m over 2005–2017 referred only to projections based on the RCP4.5 scenario. Although the authors were unlucky to have an editor who was more concerned with presentation than scientific content, they, not the editor, are ultimately responsible for the paper.
The caption to their Fig 1, which states that annual observed OHC changes are consistent with the ensemble means of the CMIP5 models, shows projections based on the RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 scenarios. The relevant 2005–2017 trends for those scenarios are respectively 0.70 and 0.71 Wm-2.
(ii) This supports my point that the 2005–2017 trend estimatable from the (revised) Resplandy data is highly uncertain. The fact that the estimated 1991–2016 Resplandy trend is somewhat less uncertain (at 0.68 ± 0.60 Wm-2) does not justify treating it as also being the 2005–2017 trend. The fact is that the information available from the Resplandy data is so imprecise that it adds almost nothing to knowledge about ocean warming trends over 2005–2017.
(iii) Noted. IMO this issue illustrates a problem with publishing papers in Science and similar 'high profile' journals.
(iv) I also used the error calculation presented in Foster and Rahmstorf 2011. I estimated the relevant autocorrelations over 2005–2017, since that was the period over which the trend was being estimated. They were insignificantly negative for the Cheng data, so no correction to the OLS standard error estimate of 0.0332 was appropriate. Multiplying this by 1.65 gives a 5–95% uncertainty range of, rounded up, ±0.06. The authors appear to agree with this value. I cannot understand how a correction for autocorrelation could possibly reduce the uncertainty range by a factor of three in these circumstances. The paper's ±0.02 uncertainty range for the Cheng 0–2000 m 2005–2017 trend seems clearly wrong.
(v) Using data only from the RCP4.5 scenario simulations, giving an ensemble mean lower than that for RCP2.6 only, for RCP8.5 only, and for all three scenarios combined, appears to be unjustified (even if had been disclosed).
Paragraph 7
Gleckler et al. 2016/Santer et al. 2014 (cited in our supplement) explicitly addressed the volcano impacts, after Outton et al. 2015, see our previous reply.
Also:
Schmidt, A., Mills, M. J., Ghan, S., Gregory, J. M., Allan, R. P., Andrews, T., et al. (2018). Volcanic radiative forcing from 1979 to 2015. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028776
Nic Lewis comments:
This is irrelevant. Outten et al 2015 also included the omission in CMIP5 models of the impacts of recent volcanic eruptions, but found that it was fully offset by the net impact of misestimation of recent changes in other forcings.
Paragraph 8
We agree that the uncertainties in the revised Resplandy estimate are quite large, as we note when including them in the paper over the 2005-2017 Argo period (0.68 ± 0.60 Wm−2). Unfortunately showing the error bars of all the underlying observational series in main text figure as well as those of the climate models would have made it unreadable, and the fact that the Resplandy estimate does not extend back to 1971 means that it is left out of the "Updated OHC estimates compared with AR5" portion of the figure that does show individual series uncertainties. However, Resplandy et al does provide a novel approach to estimating ocean heat content, and we think their median estimate was worth showing alongside the three updated instrumental datasets, even if (unlike the other three datasets) Resplandy's uncertainties are so large that they limit the claims that can be made regarding agreement with climate models.
Paragraph 9
We agree it is generally better to include the full definition of RCP8.5 to avoid any confusion, but in a press release for the general public we had to simplify. This does not impact the message in the published Science article. We note that there is an ongoing debate within the energy modeling and climate science community regarding RCP8.5 and the extent to which it represents a "business as usual" outcome, and that this is shifting with the availability of the SSP scenarios and the inclusion of a 7 w/m^2 forcing scenario in CMIP6. However, references to RCP8.5 as "business as usual" in the published literature are quite common, and the original paper presenting the RCP8.5 scenario (Riahi et al: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y) explicitly refers to it as "a high-emission business as usual scenario".
Closing statement by the paper's authors:
- Thanks for the critique, an alternative set of values could be used in Fig.2 in our calculation for 700-2000m OHC in AR5. But the uncertainties are large in those early years.
- We believe that all of our conclusions are still valid:
- After significant progress since AR5, the best OHC estimates show stronger warming than estimates featured in AR5 (0~63%), and they are also more consistent with each other.
- The models are consistent with the best OHC estimates for the 1971-2010 period. While models are warming slightly faster than most of the observational records during the 2005-2017 period, this is expected because the volcanic aerosol effects are not fully included.
Nic Lewis closing comment:
I thank the authors for their constructive response. I concur that OHC uncertainties are large in the early years of the 1971–2010 period.
None of the authors' responses refute any of my criticisms concerning factual errors and misleading statements in the paper.
In particular, presenting my method of calculating AR5 0–2000 m warming rates over 1971–2010 as alternative to their method is like claiming that calculating 4 – 2 = 1 is an alternative to calculating 4 – 2 = 2.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2FGko6t
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Chem. Commun. , 2019, Accepted Manuscript DOI : 10.1039/C8CC10001B, Communication Ning Dong, Hao Luo, Yonggao Xia, Haocheng Guo, Rushe...
-
Hi there How would you like to earn a 35% commission for each sale for life by selling SEO services Every website owner requires the ...
