Rebutting Climate Alarmism With Climate Alarmism

By Steve Haner

Nothing beats being able to expose the sleight of hand behind one climate alarmism claim by using the data from another climate alarmism claim, with both from the same source:  the Richmond Times-Dispatch.  It also provides a teaching moment about some of the advocates’ favorite ways to deceive.

Concerned you might not get the message that “climate change” is responsible for making you miserable with allergies, the newspaper offered up two stories on the same topic this month.  First, we had this, followed by a second story today.   The basic premise that an early spring means that allergies hit earlier is correct; and then the claim is early springs are getting, in a word, earlier.  Finally, predictions follow that worse is yet to come.

But two different charts are used t0 illustrate the issue, basically counting the number of days between the last spring and first fall frost.   One covers a long time period (more honest) and the second uses an intentionally short time period, resulting in a knowing exaggeration intended to deceive.

Give newspaper staffer Sean Sublette some credit for using the more honest data presentation, reproduced below and using clear source citations.  It shows data for all the lower 48 states average growing seasons back to the 1890s, showing an initial decline, then a peak in the 1930s, followed by yet another decline ending in a low point around 1970.

Since the start of the period the number of days between last and first frost has grown perhaps 15, but since the first peak in the 1930s the change has been fewer than 10 days.  It stops with 2020. Is that because 2021 and 2022 data wouldn’t fit the narrative?

Compare that to the following chart which was captured from the newspaper’s website this morning.  It starts with the year 1970,  and seems to be for Richmond only.  Look at the first line chart, with the longer data set, and the reason this second presentation started with 1970 is obvious.  It ignores the 80 years before 1970 which interfere with the impression of unprecedented, straight line change.

Always remember that charts starting in the 1960s or 1970s are intentionally starting with the recent period of lowest temperatures, the period when the alarmists were instead all over the media screaming about global cooling.  Call that end point fallacy or cherry picking.

But wait, as they say; there is more.  This second chart does go through 2022 and does show that 2021 and 2022 were lower than previous years.  So the first chart may indeed be guilty of ignoring the most recent years with existing data because it didn’t fit the narrative.

And look at all the high and low points recorded on that second chart.  It appears that 2022’s Richmond growing season was shorter than that of at least ten other years going back probably to the 1980s. The range over the period has been from a low below 180 to a high above 240, way above 2022’s.  The other table, used in the earlier story, is smoothed data from 48 states but you can bet in individual locations you will see that same pattern of wide variations and peaks long before the present.

The line drawn on the chart to imply a straight line growth of 29 continuous frost-free days between the low year of 1970 and 2022 is totally artificial, again intended to send a false message.  It is not an average of the 53 years.  Without the actual numbers you cannot calculate a trend line, but the peak has been flat or declining since it first approached 240 days decades ago.

That the northern hemisphere has been in a warming trend since about the 1970s is not in dispute, but in recent years temperature change actually has been flat. Is it about to turn?  It could start going up again, or down again, and as the data show, both have happened in the past century.

Another point both stories ignore is that the average temperature rises which have been measured are more about the daily lows, not the daily highs, so fewer frosty mornings fits that data.  Urban development is playing at least some role in that, spreading and retaining heat overnight.

But the implication that the period between frosts here has grown 29 days (!) since 1970 and is going to climb another 29 days just as rapidly if we don’t scrap our gasoline cars and gas furnaces and wait for the wind to blow to turn on our lights, that is without any foundation whatsoever.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

41 responses to “Rebutting Climate Alarmism With Climate Alarmism”

  1. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    Touché

  2. To reinforce Steve’s point about what can happen if you choose different starting points and end points… The orange line shows how I could make it look like the growing season has gotten shorter if I wanted to.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2935f4e7dfac3773b69f3b65dea24f76a4f712e41867969c8cd6c1ad71ecea1.jpg

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      You don’t think the schools are bad by accident, do you? They need an electorate that can’t do math or can be fooled by sleight of hand.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Sez the divinity major…

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          back to conspiracy theories… sigh

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          All the better prepared to spot a cult.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        this is minor stuff. If growing seasons for FOOD, REALLY do change (no matter what one thing the reason is or is not),

        Millions of folks/kids dying from famine and/or disease might also generate some conflicting charts.

        For all the speculation from what MIGHT be a result of climate change, not unlike prior speculations about other climate phenomena, we won’t really know for sure until after the fact.

        It’s not unlike a person getting older and the various things going wrong start to affect each other and magnify the effect.

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          Al Gore said we would all be dead by 2016. Greta T said 2023 would be the last year ever. Still here Mr. Larry. I don’t believe a word the climatazis say.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Not convinced that Al Gore said that nor Geta T. More convinced that the skeptics are choosing to ignore the vast majority of the world’s scientists. It’s easy to point to the exremists on both sides. Much harder to deal with the realities The problem with most skeptics IMO is that they profess to be 100 persenters.. i.e. there is zero percent chance that there is climate change and bad stuff could happen. It’s 100% denial of potentials.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      You mean by just connecting 3 points and discarding the other data? Steve’s point on failing schools may be restricted to just one… someplace in the west, after Richmond but before Waynesboro, on the East side of the Blue Ridge,…

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Southern California was a Mecca for those suffering allergies, asthma, etc. Then the easterners brought all manner of east coast plants and flowers, began watering them with diverted waters, and now we have 700″ of snow in Reno and tornadoes in LA… What’s not to understand?

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Worked both ways. An east coast guy, I moved to San Diego in 1970. My allergic reactions to local pollens were so debilitating that I had to get allergy shots.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        sounds like “science”….. 😉

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        My brother was able to stop getting allergy shots a year after moving to LA.

        His allergies were so bad growing up that I knew when we fought if I could get his face in the grass, the fight was over.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          chiggers… don’t go walking in the woods…..

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      LMSE fit would be better.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      The credibility of the author was made suspect by drawing any climate based conclusions from Richmond alone.

    3. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      The credibility of the author was made suspect by drawing any climate based conclusions from Richmond alone.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Apparently this guy is wrong
    https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/a-heatwave%E2%80%93now-do-you-believe-in-global-warming

    Not as many have changed as he believes…

  5. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    Another example of How to Lie with Statistics. The earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age and will continue to do so until the next one.
    Climate change is real and human activity has an impact but reality is muddied by catastrophe advocates who use models and radical scenarios to to demonstrate that the end is near.

  6. One simple question will destroy each and every Climate Change model — not matter the conclusions drawn: What technological innovations and inventions are you incorporating into your model looking out 10, 20, 40, 50, 100 years?

    The answer is always NONE…. thus these idiots are stating that innovation has stopped.

    Look at what the experts were worried about in 1900 New York City….

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Do you believe the CFC models for the Ozone Holes?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      That’s not what models are for. We have dozens of hurricane models. What technology do you want them to incorporate?

      We have drought models and rainfall models… etc… they model physical things.

      Those models inform us as to prospective policies and technologies.

      The Ozone Models told us what would happen and from those models, we determined what changes we’d need to make to reduce/mitigate Ozone Holes. The climate thing is not much different.

      One could have argued that ozone holes were “normal” cycles that needed no response. There were folks that argued that. Some folks still believe the Ozone holes were made up and not real.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Humans make climate models. Humans make economic models. Humans make models of wars.

        Most do the best they can. Some to make a point.

        They are not identical; some conflict.

        They “inform us” regardless of their accuracy as predictive tools. Even when wrong.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Modeling is to gain insight. Accuracy is sometimes secondary.

          If I had a model that could accurately predict market direction three days out, I would gladly sacrifice precision.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            All your SLBMs are guided by models….. as are all of the GPS and NOAA Satellites… Hubble, Mars, etc…

            It’s a lack of understanding and knowledge that is involved with “skeptics”.

            Anyone who has ever worked with any large moving objects, on earth or in space, deals with models…. and there are things, “variables” that are dynamic and cannot be accurately determined but they are quantified and incorporated ….

            thus you have a hurricane model that has errors, and another that also has errors and a 3rd … and a dozen more but if one plots them all, relevant and vital information is provided,,,,all the time.. and relied on for making decisions.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          No model is 100% correct. There are things that are so variable they cannot be modeled with precision. This does not render them not useful by a long shot. You can look at 50 hurricane models and say that not one of them got it “right” but to ignore them is folly. Ditto for Climate IMO.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well, not entirely true. If you mean are they incorporating fusion power specifically, the answer is mostly likely, “No.”. If on the other hand the question is “Do you ever assume that CO2 production is diminished from current rates,” then the answer is most likely “Yes.”. The purpose of modeling is “What if?”

      “The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers” — Richard Hamming, Mathematician

      “The purpose of computing numbers is not yet in sight.” — Richard Hamming, Mathematician

  7. We all know “statistics lie.” But I seem to recall that most editors encourage young reporters to focus on the evidence that supports the point they’re trying to make! Did this reporter’s limiting his data to the last 50 years really imply a conclusion “without any foundation whatsoever”? No question the evidence is there in the first graph for a cumulatively longer growing season (over 15 days longer since 1900), just not as severe a rate of increase as the second graph implies from the smaller data set.

    So, the short term future cannot be extrapolated from the short term past with as much confidence as long-term from long-term. That’s true of just about any multi-variable statistic! That’s why confidence levels are explained in most scholarly journals.

    So, two reporters from the RTD portrayed derived similar but not identical trend lines from different data sets? I am left wondering what the “gotcha” is. If it’s simply that different narratives exist, I’m sure there are accounts in the social media that would “prove” even greater dissonance.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      No one narrative or “report” or “news article” on an issue that is in debate is a way to understand and make a reasonable opinion, IMO.

      That’s why when we say “scientific consensus” , it means more than one opinion. It means many and even then it does not mean all.

      When it comes to “journalists” , we only need to look at FOX News and the election to see an example of isolating to one source.

      Even as many other sources were doubting the claims, FOX stuck with theirs and people that believed FOX over other outlets were demonstrating what happens when one chooses to not consult multiple sources on an issue to get at least some consensus.

      So , it’s easy pickens to do what this blog post does. Two sources are barely better than one and in the case of allergies, the issue has been a long-standing discussion that never has locked down to a widely-understood “truth” by any stretch of the imagination.

      Welcome back Acbar. You must be way too busy to play in BR these days, eh?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Lobbyists don’t have consensus; they have paychecks.

      2. In these polarized times, the ‘play’ on BR can demand extended breaks away from it.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          ouch ! the truth might hurt.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          For a reasonable man maybe, but for those of us…

      3. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Lobbyists don’t have consensus; they have paychecks.

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    What one could determine from the RTD article is that a reporter isn’t any better at analyzing data and determining the implications of anthropomorphic CO2 production than is a lobbyist.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      for those that are not journalists or lobbyists, the mindset that convinces them that there is not a chance in hell that something can happen to them or wider scale, including the earth is impressive. Dumb but impressive.

  9. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    The Richmond Times Dispatch is not a news reporting organization, it is a progressive narrative organization. End of story.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      so we don’t quote from it ever, right?

  10. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Thank God for RTD: if RTD writes an opinionated piece about a national issue, then we can tee off on it here. Otherwise we are limited to Virginia politics, which is not always as much fun.

Leave a Reply