Facebook – Fact Check Rebuttal – 09-07-22

Well, I just took the first slap to my face(book) on social media. But what a weak, pathetic slap it was. The Australian Associated Press (AAP) “Fact Checker” (Kate Atkinson) has declared that the claim that “Antarctic temperatures have declined over the past 40 years” is “False” as per the AAP “Verdict”. Note: the “claim” is not mine, the “claim” was made by many others before me. The full rebuttal can be found on my website at CSS-27 – Facebook – Fact Check Rebuttal.

Here is a sample of the AAP statements (bold, italic are quotes).

“The post includes a link to a blog, which cites a 2021 study as evidence to support the claim. The study is an assessment of the ERA5 dataset for near-surface air temperature in Antarctica.

The ERA5 dataset is an atmospheric reanalysis of the global climate from 1950 to present, produced by the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.

Experts told AAP FactCheck the evidence shows temperatures across the majority of Antarctica are warming overall.”

The “post” (mentioned above) is my recent post CSS-27 – Is CO₂ Really the Primary Climate Driver (which apparently went against their “Community Standards”). More on that later. The “link to a blog” (mentioned above), takes you to my blog (climatechangeandmusic.com), specifically to CSS-13 – A look at Homogenization. The CSS-13 post, primarily directed at homogenization in general, did look at all the long-term Antarctic weather stations (22 in total, 12 in East Antarctica).

The 1981 to 2021 arithmetic average of those 12 long-term stations is -0.22 °C/century. Not definitive (or comprehensive) on its own, which is why I included the “2021 study” (mentioned above) that has stated the temperatures in East Antarctica have declined significantly (7.0 ±2.4 °C/century) over the last 40 years, the West Antarctica temperatures have very likely declined (4.2 ±3.8 °C/century) over the last 40 years and the Antarctic Peninsula temperatures have very likely risen (1.8 ±2.3 °C/century) over the last 40 years. Nowhere in the AAP “FactCheck” do they present any evidence disproving the Zhu et al 2021 paper. They do appeal to experts as laid out in the third sentence quoted above. What they do not do, is go the experts (Zhu et al) that wrote the aforementioned 2021 study. Nor do they go to “their experts” to point out the problems that may exist in the Zhu et al 2021 paper. The damning beatdowns from their experts are shown below.

Dr. Ted Scambos, said (referring to the Zhu et al 2021 Study) “while it is hard to say whether the entire record ((1979-2020) showed a warming or cooling trend, he confirmed there is an overall warming trend in Antarctica”. Not very definitive.

Dr. Kyle Clem, said “However, overall, Antarctica more broadly exhibits a long-term warming trend from stations and ERA5 on an annual mean basis”.

Prof. Eric Steig, simply said “the idea that Antarctica temperatures have declined over the last 40 years is simply wrong”. He should take that up with Zhu et al. Their paper has been peer reviewed and published. If Prof. Steig et al feel that the paper is incorrect, they should have it removed.

The AAP “fact check” provides links to other Antarctic Temperature studies, which is both appropriate and encouraged. However, that does not invalidate the Zhu et al 2021 Paper nor make the disputed statement false. Einstein, Galileo, and a whole lot of other scientists have put forward controversial statements, papers, etc. that were disputed by the “leading” scientists of their day. Those statements were not false, they just did not conform to the consensus. Thankfully, they were proven correct (or our society would look a whole lot different).

The AAP fact check also points out as per Dr. Klem “There are complex and highly seasonal processes that indeed govern Antarctic climate variability that are unique to Antarctica and vary by region/season,” and “These include multi-decadal circulation changes tied to tropical variability, sea-ice anomalies, ozone depletion and increasing greenhouse gases which strengthen westerly winds and “paradoxically” cool some regions”. I have some issues with the “greenhouse gas” reference but we can leave that alone for now.

The AAP fact check does not dispute the coldest six-month period, but they are quick to provide justifications that lessen the damage to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) alarmist narrative. An example is shown below, but there are other links in the AAP fact check.

“Research published in the State of the Climate in 2021 report, an international, peer-reviewed publication from the American Meteorological Society (AMS), shows the 2021 cold winter in the South Pole had little impact on the long-term warming trend in this region”.

“The report explains the record cold temperatures were due to below-average pressure and stronger than average westerly winds throughout much of the year. The low pressure extended vertically through the troposphere and stratosphere, and was accompanied by a strong and stable polar vortex”.

I have not seen any “Fact Checkers” applying the same level of scrutiny (or virtually any for that matter) to any papers, articles, news reports (the July 2021 Pacific Northwest “Heat Dome” (PNWHD) as an example), etc. that conform to the CAGW alarmist narrative. The PNWHD was a localized weather event (a very complicated one), not the result of “climate change”/CO₂. The global temperature anomaly on July 21^st, 2021, was (despite the PNWHD) was only 0.2 °C above the 1979 to 2000 average (based on the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer data set). Although, the temperatures were hot in the Pacific Northwest last summer, the planet was not.

Every article, paper, study, report, book, etc. can only cover a portion of most subjects (especially for a subject as complex as “climate science”). I have no problem with someone putting out a comment on my posts, that suggests other studies, a different opinion, a different data source, etc. In fact, I have encouraged it often. So, if putting a link to a post (like the Zhu et al 2021 paper) in one of my posts is worthy of censorship, then a post by Scambos, Clem, Steig or any poster claiming the Antarctic temperature has not declined over the last 40 years, should also be censored if they do not include Zhu et al 2021 (a paper that has been peer reviewed and published). Consensus has no place in science unless you agree that we are living in a totalitarian society. Do you?

Maybe the AAP and your other “fact checkers” (or based on court documents, opinion checkers) would like to put some warnings on any article that uses any surface temperature datasets (this would include NASA/GISS, NOAA, the Hadley Center, Berkeley Earth, etc.). All these datasets are subject to data manipulation (called homogenization to make the process sound more scientific). Not one of them is honest enough to publish the measured temperatures alongside their official “homogenized” temperatures. Nor do they show the reasons for homogenization (and there can be valid reasons). Prof. Steig was allowed to put forward one example in his “rebuttal”. So, I will take the same opportunity. I live in Calgary and have experienced the temperatures here since the early 1980s. Measured temperatures in Calgary (based on the Calgary Airport weather station expansion in 1973) have declined at a rate of 1.76 °C/century. Through the magic of “homogenization”, the official Calgary temperature (all NASA/GISS data) has been increasing at a rate of 1.35 °C/century. That is a change of +3.11 °C/century. I do not know what world the META crowd (or their fact checkers) live in, but in the real world, we experience the measured temperatures.

The Calgary example is played out all over the world. The most egregious example is the Dirty Thirties. The people of that period experienced excessive heat (measured temperatures) and severe drought (generally significantly higher than today’s examples of supposed existential catastrophism). In the virtual world created by the CAGW alarmist community, the Dirty Thirties no longer exist. The spirits of the people that suffered and/or died through that period will be relieved to know that they did not actually experience the high temperatures that their thermometers were measuring. There are many other examples of higher temperatures and longer droughts throughout recorded history (for those that care to look).

Maybe, the fact checkers would also like to throw on some omiss/mis/disinformation comments on any article, paper, etc. that uses the IPCC computer models to produce their projections. The models have been self acknowledged as running too hot. Worthy of a mention, perhaps? You might also throw in a disclaimer on any article that uses the RCP8.5 emission scenario in their projections. The IPCC itself has stated that this scenario is highly implausible. And just for the record, the authors of the RCP scenarios have indicated that the RCP scenarios should not be used to make policy decisions. So, why do you think the RCP scenarios are being used to implement policy? Links supporting the previous statements are available in my OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science post.

So, you say my CSS-27 post does not conform to Facebook Community Standards. My process is very simple. I focus on the data. I download the data from NASA, NOAA, and a variety of academic and scientific institutions from around the world. I plot and analyze that data myself and come to my own conclusions (independent of opinions from anywhere along the climate science spectrum). I encourage the reader to look at the data and come to their own conclusions on what the data is telling them. Occasionally, I will refer to other papers, articles, etc. and I provide the links to those documents. I do not attack individuals; I am not derogatory (although I can throw in some sarcasm). So, please tell me where exactly and how I have violated “Community Standards”.

Being censored for providing links to peer reviewed published papers is a step towards a totalitarian state. Are you, Facebook endorsing that totalitarian policy? At this point, you have censored a multi page document based on a 51-character statement (Antarctic temperatures have declined over the past 40 years) that the fact checkers have not proven to be incorrect. Other interpretations/studies have been put forward but the Zhu et al 2021 paper has never been discredited. In reality, the fact check proves the statement to be correct by acknowledging that Antarctica experienced its coldest six-month period ever last year. You can argue interpretation but based on last year’s temperatures, Antarctica is colder than it was 40 years earlier (without considering Zhu et al).

Maybe you could request that your “fact checkers” bring forward an empirical Temperature/CO₂ dataset that shows CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale. As a climate realist, I stand by the Scientific Method (which requires empirical data to validate a theory/hypothesis (or even a narrative)). If you (and your fact checkers) cannot bring that empirical data forward, then you might want to consider coming up with a representative fact check that would be applicable to every article, paper, etc. on emissions, renewables, NetZero, etc.