Matt Ridley has produced the shortest whole, killer summary of the sordid state of climate science, science journalism, and science associations for Quadrant magazine. This is the ideal single-chapter-length-work to bring in anyone who missed the last twenty years of clima-farce, scandal, hubris and hypocrisy.
Matt is not just summing up the way his career as a science writer has transformed, but also writing the best review of the IPA book “Climate Change: The Facts” that I have yet seen. He talks about the way science writers used to ignore the papers that didn’t impress them, and leave it up to the scientists to take them apart, but now the supposedly most esteemed scientists stay silent while abject failures not only get published in the scientific world, but get absurdly lauded in the media, and tweeted by “the President”. Formerly great scientific institutions have turned themselves inside out:
“The Royal Society once used to promise “never to give their opinion, as a body, upon any subject”. Its very motto is “nullius in verba”: take nobody’s word for it. Now it puts out catechisms of what you must believe in. “
Matt’s career, like mine, started with faith that science and the human industries of it, were self-correcting. “For much of my life I have been a science writer”, he explains, but now “…thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas.” He feels betrayed by an industry he once championed. I too used to communicate the awe and value of research, but now end up mostly only awed at the mountain of money wasted on self-satirical works like Lewandowsky, and Cook et al. I mock my former alma maters, UWA and ANU. My role in science communication is to point out the grand failure of my profession, who are trained to sell science to the public, but should be serving the public by asking the hard questions instead. Science Communicators should be the guardians of the scientific method, but most science writers don’t seem to know what it is. They should be the backstop when the institutions of science fail, not the cheerleaders for wasted public funds.
If you enjoy Matt’s article, you’ll enjoy the whole book — available through the IPA in Australia and now at Amazon in paperback: Climate Change: The Facts, and kindle.
I wrote about monopolistic funding and the rise of the volunteer auditors back in 2009, and Matt is one of the few to carry and develop this theme, documenting the importance of political support and the rise of the science bloggers to fill the vacuum. Where, he asks, is the outrage from mainstream scientists? Where indeed?
The democratisation of science
Any one of these scandals in, say, medicine might result in suspensions, inquiries or retractions. Yet the climate scientific establishment repeatedly reacts as if nothing is wrong. It calls out any errors on the lukewarming end, but ignores those on the exaggeration end. That complacency has shocked me, and done more than anything else to weaken my long-standing support for science as an institution. I repeat that I am not a full sceptic of climate change, let alone a “denier”. I think carbon-dioxide-induced warming during this century is likely, though I think it is unlikely to prove rapid and dangerous. So I don’t agree with those who say the warming is all natural, or all driven by the sun, or only an artefact of bad measurement, but nor do I think anything excuses bad scientific practice in support of the carbon dioxide theory, and every time one of these scandals erupts and the scientific establishment asks us to ignore it, I wonder if the extreme sceptics are not on to something. I feel genuinely betrayed by the profession that I have spent so much of my career championing.
There is, however, one good thing that has happened to science as a result of the climate debate: the democratisation of science by sceptic bloggers. It is no accident that sceptic sites keep winning the “Bloggies” awards. There is nothing quite like them for massive traffic, rich debate and genuinely open peer review.
Well, internet trolls are roaming the woods in every subject, so what am I complaining about? The difference is that in the climate debate they have the tacit or explicit support of the scientific establishment. Venerable bodies like the Royal Society almost never criticise journalists for being excessively alarmist, only for being too lukewarm, and increasingly behave like pseudoscientists, explaining away inconvenient facts.
Matt writes with speed and wit, adroitly packing whole scandals into a mere paragraph.
Jim Hansen, recently retired as head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA, won over a million dollars in lucrative green prizes, regularly joined protests against coal plants and got himself arrested while at the same time he was in charge of adjusting and homogenising one of the supposedly objective data sets on global surface temp. How would he be likely to react if told of evidence that climate change is not such a big problem?
He writes about the bizarre overt Psychology of Taboo that is used to crush the mildest debate and to polarize those who take a sensible, but invisible, middle road:
But the commentators ignore all these caveats and babble on about warming of “up to” four degrees (or even more), then castigate as a “denier” anybody who says, as I do, the lower end of the scale looks much more likely given the actual data. This is a deliberate tactic. Following what the psychologist Philip Tetlock called the “psychology of taboo”, there has been a systematic and thorough campaign to rule out the middle ground as heretical: not just wrong, but mistaken, immoral and beyond the pale. That’s what the word denier with its deliberate connotations of Holocaust denial is intended to do. For reasons I do not fully understand, journalists have been shamefully happy to go along with this fundamentally religious project.
So where’s the outrage from scientists at this presidential distortion? It’s worse than that, actually. The 97 per cent figure is derived from two pieces of pseudoscience that would have embarrassed a homeopath. The first was a poll that found that 97 per cent of just seventy-nine scientists thought climate change was man-made—not that it was dangerous. A more recent poll of 1854 members of the American Meteorological Society found the true number is 52 per cent.
The second source of the 97 per cent number was a survey of scientific papers, which has now been comprehensively demolished by Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, who is probably the world’s leading climate economist. As the Australian blogger Joanne Nova summarised Tol’s findings, John Cook of the University of Queensland and his team used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along, a scientific no-no if ever there was one. The data could not be replicated, and Cook himself threatened legal action to hide them. Yet neither the journal nor the university where Cook works has retracted the paper, and the scientific establishment refuses to stop citing it, let alone blow the whistle on it. Its conclusion is too useful.
This should be a huge scandal, not fodder for a tweet by the leader of the free world. Joanne Nova, incidentally, is an example of a new breed of science critic that the climate debate has spawned. With little backing, and facing ostracism for her heresy, this talented science journalist had abandoned any chance of a normal, lucrative career and systematically set out to expose the way the huge financial gravy train that is climate science has distorted the methods of science. In her chapter in The Facts, Nova points out that the entire trillion-dollar industry of climate change policy rests on a single hypothetical assumption, first advanced in 1896, for which to this day there is no evidence.
The assumption is that modest warming from carbon dioxide must be trebly amplified by extra water vapour—that as the air warms there will be an increase in absolute humidity providing “a positive feedback”. That assumption led to specific predictions that could be tested. And the tests come back negative again and again. The large positive feedback that can turn a mild warming into a dangerous one just is not there. There is no tropical troposphere hot-spot. Ice cores unambiguously show that temperature can fall while carbon dioxide stays high. Estimates of climate sensitivity, which should be high if positive feedbacks are strong, are instead getting lower and lower. Above all, the temperature has failed to rise as predicted by the models.
Matt Ridley was one of the writers, like Mark Steyn, I used to admire from a distance when I was an underling in the science communication world. It is one of the few but priceless rewards of taking the hard road — to know them both.
Mark Steyn has the full list of Amazon subsidiary pages to buy The Book.
This is just one sixth of the full excellent essay at Quadrant magazine.
Matt Ridley is an English science journalist whose books include The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves. A member of the House of Lords, he has a website at www.mattridley.co.uk. He declares an interest in coal through the leasing of land for mining.
The BOM Technical Advisory Forum report is out. Finally there is the black and white admission that the BOM “adjusted” dataset cannot be replicated independently, has not been replicated by any other group, and even more so, that the BOM will not provide enough information for anyone who wants to try.
As we have said all along, the all new ACORN wonder-data was not created with the scientific method. Adjustments to Australian temperature data were done with a black box mystery technique that only the sacred guild at the BOM are allowed to know. Far from being published and peer reviewed, the methods are secret, and rely on — in their own words — a “supervised process” of “expert judgment” and “operator intervention”. In other words, a BOM employee makes their best guess, ruling in or out the “optimal” choices, making assumptions that are not documented anywhere.
It’s a “trust us” approach. Would we let an ASX company audit their own books? Would you buy shares in such a company, or let it inform national policy on billion dollar schemes?
Here is the entire section on replication from page 9 and 10 (below). This is what any semi-skilled PR operative would write if they were trying to justify keeping their methods secret. My translations included.
Ability to reproduce findings
Only BOM staff are smart enough to understand “scientifically complex” thermometers (this is something that engineers, astrophysicists, aeronautics experts and physicists would not be able to do, is that what they are saying?):
The Forum considers that the algorithms and processes used for adjustment and homogenisation are scientifically complex and a reasonably high level of expertise is needed to attempt analysis of the ACORN-SAT data. For this reason the Forum had some queries about the ability to reproduce findings by both experts and members of the public.
Thinly veiled put-down coming:
It would be useful for the Bureau to provide advice about the necessary level of end-user expertise (notwithstanding a likely tendency for end-users to feel qualified to attempt such an analysis).
It might be more “useful” if the BOM staff provided their personal exam results in fluid dynamics, heat flow, mathematics and statistics. Or even just their resumes? We’ll find people who outscored them. OK?
Here’s the statement that no one has replicated the Australian temperature set:
The Forum felt that reproducing the Bureau’s ACORN-SAT daily analyses would be a very onerous task, and advice was supplied at the Forum meeting day that, while international groups have provided independent data homogenized at the monthly time-scale, no groups other than the Bureau are known to have attempted to produce or analyse an homogenized daily data set for Australia. One option would the Bureau to work with local and international collaborators with the appropriate skill set to broadly assess the ACORN-SAT daily homogenisation methodologies.
Here is the statement that no one can replicate them because only the BOM knows how it was done (my bolding):
The Forum noted that the extent to which the development of the ACORN-SAT dataset from the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention. The Forum investigated the nature of the operator intervention required and the bases on which such decisions are made and concluded that very detailed instructions from the Bureau are likely to be necessary for an end-user who wishes to reproduce the ACORN-SAT findings. Some such details are provided in Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) technical reports (e.g. use of 40 best correlated sites for adjustments, thresholds for adjustment, and so on); however, the Forum concluded that it is likely to remain the case that several choices within the adjustment process remain a matter of expert judgment and appropriate disciplinary knowledge.
The process can’t be “automated” — which means it can’t be described by a set of rules other people, or other computers could follow. It’s a bit of a red herring: skeptics have never demanded “automation”. We just want explanations. The crux of science is replication, not automation. If ad hoc judgements were part of the process, they need to be recorded and their impact on the numbers included in the processing from raw data to final product. Justifications can come afterwards; let’s first establish what happened.
These are weak and vague promises here for something that is not just a basic tenet of science, but should be obligatory for government funded work as well. (Bolding all mine):
The Forum recommends that the Bureau work towards providing robust code that supports a level of automation that allows sensitivity analyses to be reasonably undertaken by independent parties.
What “independent re-analysis”? There is no independent analysis of all of ACORN.
This goal could be pursued through a careful documentation of existing code and feedback from the independent re-analysis recommended in the preceding paragraph.
The Bureau would like to help but it costs too much, and skeptics will have to pay more for answers from these tax-funded workers:
While the Bureau expressed willingness to support end-users who wished to reproduce findings or conduct independent analyses using the ACORN-SAT data, subsequent follow-up on such intentions may have significant resource implications. It is thus recommended that the Bureau limits the amount of assistance it provides end-users and includes a statement on the ACORN-SAT website that while reasonable assistance may be provided by the Bureau, extensive assistance could not be provided without an appropriate at-cost charge. Such limitations are likely to also limit the ability of end-users to replicate ACORN-SAT findings, but the resource implications of offering open-ended support to end-users may be substantial.
The Bureau of Meteorology Budget was 344.2 million in 2014-15. The Australian climate is a national crisis, but the Bureau can’t employ one person to answer questions about its secret methods?
When will the BOM start to behave as though the climate is important? When will the Greens demand science be done properly for the sake of the environment?
Two out of three Australians live in our capital cities where the longest and best resourced temperature records would be found. These are the places where the weather reports matter to the most people on a daily basis — and where headlines about records and trends will be widely discussed. But these are also the sites which have been affected by the growth of concrete and skyscrapers, and potentially have the largest urban heat island (UHI) effect, so might need the largest adjustments.
Bob Fernley-Jones has been going through the BOM records for six of Australia’s state capitals, looking at the original raw data (at least, as is recorded in the BOM’s climate data online, called CDO). Bob compares the new “corrected” dataset called ACORN for these locations — that’s the all new marvelous adjusted data. He finds many step changes that can’t be explained by known site moves or the UHI effect. Many step changes occur in either minima or maxima, but not in both at the same time, which is also odd. As we already know, the adjustments usually cool the past — especially the minima (see all the blue lines on graphs below that dip below zero) — which has the effect of increasing the warming trend of mean temperatures.
For some reason thermometers that read 4 degrees C on crisp mornings in Perth circa 1920 should have read 2C (or 4F lower), which was only discovered decades later. Maybe there is a good reason for that, but despite the BOM’s keen interest in saving the Australian climate, they don’t explain why these kinds of large changes are necessary in physical terms or with historic documents (indeed they don’t even seem very interested in the oldest historic temperature records we have). Apparently the mysterious process of “homogenization” with other nearby stations (which may be hundreds of kilometers away) is enough. We skeptics think that thermometers are not brain surgery, and that the BOM ought to be able to explain these large changes in terms of site moves, changes, or documented events. And of course it should explain because it is a public organization.
The BOM acknowledges that these capital city sites are affected by the massive growth of concrete and cars, and say these sites are “not used in regional and national analyses”. However, these sites are potentially used to homogenize other sites. (Which raises the question: do those inexplicable historic cooling adjustments then infect other station records, which are used in state and national trends?) The capital city records are also the sources of a lot of news headlines (like the “hottest ever night”). The media stories never mention how much the headline depends on adjusting the original records.
We’ve previously discussed the mysteries of the Melbourne temperature record but spent little time detailing Perth, which has the largest adjustments of all the six capitals studied. Thanks to Bob Fernley-Jones for his dedication. Don’t miss his summary paragraphs.
Since 30-40% of the Australian warming trend is due to inexplicable adjustments, I maintain my position that the BOM needs to be independently audited (not by a group selected by them), and their processing replicated (from raw data to final product) with all reasons and explanations made public, which is clearly not happening. – Jo
Corrupted Australian Surface Temperature Records (Part 1)
A tale of Six Cities Guest post Bob Fernley-Jones
The term “corrupted” is used in the technical sense: has the data become so damaged it has lost validity?
a) In choosing the six capital cities with long records, (and so excluding Brisbane, and Canberra), there was an expectation that these sites would have the best resources, and probably the most robust records out of the 112 ACORN stations. However, Adelaide, Darwin and Perth are effectively six separate sites because of substantial relocations from within town centres. (They need consideration WRT potentially different environments including; wind directional exposure, cold air entrapment, and UHI effect. There was little or no site adjustment in Hobart, Melbourne and Sydney. The Melbourne (RO) site was appallingly bad for UHI etcetera and was finally closed in Jan/2015. Sydney and Hobart sites are relatively open on grass, and it is specifically described in ACORN that there was no UHI effect in Sydney after 1910 and only a minor (vague) site adjustment in 1917. There is no apparent justification for six subsequent step-changes. See link below for site details).
b) There are many sharp step-changes that have no correlations in the ACORN Station History Catalogue. There are also site changes that might arguably show step-changes but do not. The mostly unaccountable random distributions are more chaotic in that they are different between minima and maxima. However, there are tenuous arguments (e.g. Trewin et al) that a particular step change may be considered to only apply to either maxima or minima but not both, or, cause opposite effects between maxima and minima. Whatever, it is unlikely that this is frequently validated. There are also contradictions. For instance a minor relocation at the Sydney Observatory in 1917 was claimed to reduce exposure that affected both maxima and minima, but a step-change is only seen in the maxima.
Summary points c, d, e and f continue below.
Notes on the graphs: These represent the size of the adjustments and are calculated as ACORN (new) – CDO (original). The blue lines are adjustments to minima, and the red lines adjustments to maxima. Lines running to the top or bottom just show points where data is missing. For all the details — see more expansive notes below.
Click to enlarge
Fig 1) Adelaide…. Comments:
Within the (blue) minima there are four step-changes prior to 1977, but they require careful inspection to see because of over-plotting by the (red) maxima. But, during that same period the maxima only have two convincing step-changes versus four. The ACORN site history gives three vaguely described site changes during that period but how the BoM could correctly determine their effect is unknown. From 1977 when Kent Town replaced the original West Terrace site, there are three step-changes in the maxima towards ~2002, but no recorded site changes during that time. Why the minima CDO are identical to ACORN back to 1977 but the maxima commonality only goes back to ~2002 is at least strange, (but by no means the most extreme case). At Kent Town one of the step-changes embodies a notably different shape to the rest of the record. That is to say, the “corrections” apply at different seasonal times. Strange!
Keep reading →
We have found the holy grail and it is chocolate. Lo, “Eating 100 g of chocolate daily linked to lowered heart disease and stroke risk”. One hundred grams a day! That’s about a quarter of the average adult woman’s total daily calorie intake. (About one sixth for a man).
So much for the 99% certain consensus that chocolate was junk food.
Eating up to 100 g of chocolate every day is linked to lowered heart disease and stroke risk. The calculations showed that compared with those who ate no chocolate higher intake was linked to an 11% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 25% lower risk of associated death.
They base their findings on almost 21,000 adults taking part in the EPIC-Norfolk study…
Around one in five (20%) participants said they did not eat any chocolate, but among the others, daily consumption averaged 7 g, with some eating up to 100 g.
Chocolate was associated with younger age… (we want some of that, right?)
Higher levels of consumption were associated with younger age and lower weight (BMI), waist: hip ratio, systolic blood pressure, inflammatory proteins, diabetes and more regular physical activity –all of which add up to a favourable cardiovascular disease risk profile.
Eating more chocolate was also associated with higher energy intake and a diet containing more fat and carbs and less protein and alcohol.
The calculations showed that compared with those who ate no chocolate higher intake was linked to an 11% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 25% lower risk of associated death.
OK the bottom line — I like that they talk of mortality, but it’s not all-cause mortality, so it doesn’t really count. What if chocolate reduces heart disease but increases cancer?
I like that there is a linear relationship right up to the highest levels of chocolate consumption. I don’t like that they didn’t even ask what kind of chocolate people were eating — as if Cadbury milk is the same as G&B’s 85% organic dark. Sacrilege!
I like that I now know there are people out there who eat more chocolate that I do. I feel so normal.
Confounders abound — what if people with dodgy hearts cut out the chocolate? What if chocolate is just displacing something worse? For anyone thinking of picking up the 100g daily habit, do check out the issues with cadmium.
Keep reading →
A new study uses a ‘high resolution air temperature estimation model’ to
figure out (guess) the daily air temperature pregnant women in Massachusetts might have been exposed to during their pregnancy. A whopping increase of 8.5C in the last three months was associated with a 17 gram drop in birth weight. Given that global temperatures have risen by about 1 C in the last 100 years, at the current rate, that amount of warming will arrive in 850 years. Then if this correlation has any causal role, the average 3kg baby will weigh about 0.5% less. Scared yet?
Since the researchers are talking about outdoor temperatures, I’m guessing this study will especially concern pregnant women who will be homeless, or without electricity in the year 2850. Obviously the solution is cheap coal powered air conditioners
. Why risk it?*
The Daily Mail h/t Colin
Is climate change affecting birth weights? Exposure to warmer weather during pregnancy leads to smaller babies, study claims
- Researchers uncovered a link between air temperature and birth weight
- Found exposure to high air temperature during pregnancy increases the risk of lower birth weight and can cause premature birth
- An increase of 8.5 °C (47.3°F) in the last trimester was associated with a 0.6 ounce (17g) decrease in birth weight of babies born full term, study claims
By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline
I think it says something about the science sub editing here that conversions were done through some kind of google app: an 8.5 °C increase is not “plus 47.3°F”.
As Dailymail commenter Gregg, from Wichita, said: “The science is sketchy.. The taxes are real.”
Keep reading →
Oops!. OK There are two in a row because of a computer glitch last week. I put off the double one then til this week, and totally forgot I had prescheduled that errant extra unthreaded. – Jo
Perhaps I need a “Tips and Hints” thread?
The Australian Medical Association is a powerful union here, and the AMA President, Brian Owler, is an outspoken advocate of the need for more action to change the climate, calling it “intergenerational theft” if we don’t do something. (Apparently we care for our kids by spending billions of their dollars now on schemes to fix the weather. If that’s not stealing, what is? )
Apparently the AMA are surveying their members to prepare for their big political climate statement. Christopher Monckton has the questions (and the correct answers) below. My message is that the climate models are wrong, and that thousands of scientists, including most engineers and geologists and even half of meteorologists are skeptical of the exaggerated forecasts. Carbon dioxide has a small effect which is magnified in models with guesses about humidity and clouds that we know are wrong. Australian doctors have a great reputation that will be tarnished if they are seen as using their trusted position to score unscientific and political points.
Though if the AMA did come out as “Doctors for the Planet” raging against carbon, I look forward to John Cook’s announcement that their opinion is irrelevant because they have no expertise in climate science.
Another me-too climate statement by a non-climate body
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Several concerned senior members of the medical profession in Australia have contacted the Lord Monckton Foundation to express their disappointment at an opinion survey on climate change circulated by the Association’s President, who proposes to promulgate what would be yet another me-too “Position Statement on Climate Change”.
Though, as one doctor has pointed out, it is welcome that before the Association commits itself to any position statement it is first consulting its members [which is more than can be said for most scientific societies that have issued “me-too” statements on climate change], members are dismayed that they are being consulted on a subject that is wholly beyond the scientific competence or remit of the medical profession.
An eminent specialist at a tertiary training institution put it thus: “I have no expert knowledge in the sciences associated with climate, meteorology etc. I very much doubt if many members of the AMA have the relevant knowledge to come out in support or protest of any particular climate stance … any noise generated by the AMA carries no more weight than any other trade grouping.”
It has also been suggested that “the President has political aspirations and may be doing a Gore”
The most frequent complaint, however, is that the terms of the survey are prejudiced, being calculated to reflect only an interventionist viewpoint. For instance, one of the survey questions cites the final report of Tim Flannery’s relentlessly partisan and now disbanded Climate Change “Authority”.
Flannery is the activist, paid $180,000 of Australian taxpayers’ money per year for his former part-time sinecure as head of the “Authority”, who foretold that, because of manmade global warming, never again would water flow through the rivers of the vast Murray-Darling Basin to the major population centers of south-eastern Australia.
Just months later, the most recent of the region’s frequent droughts broke and heavy rains filled every river and reservoir in the system to the brim.
To assist doctors who may wish to participate in the AMA President’s propaganda exercise, but in a manner that accords not with his self-evident prejudices but with objective scientific data and peer-reviewed results, each of the survey’s questions will be set forth, followed by relevant data and references.
To what extent do you agree that “There is now substantial evidence to indicate that human activity – and specifically increased greenhouse gas emissions – is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases”?
The upper few meters of the ocean, which must warm if the planetary surface is to warm, have cooled very slightly during the 11 years of systematic subsea temperature observation by the 3600 automated bathythermograph floats of the ARGO series. The floats only measure the top mile and a quarter of an ocean that is in places many miles deep. Over the entire mile and a quarter there has been warming, but only at a rate equivalent to 1 C° every 430 years:
The gentle increase in the ocean warming rate with depth suggests volcanic warming by slow diffusion from below rather than greenhouse-gas-driven warming from above. The warming may be occurring chiefly via the mid-ocean divergence boundaries through which magmatic heat is transferred directly to the sea floor. We do not know for sure, because the ocean below 1.9 km depth is not systemically monitored.
Or there may be no ocean warming at all, for each buoy has to measure a 200,000 km3 volume of seawater about 200 miles square by a mile and a quarter deep, so that the coverage uncertainty is monstrous.
Keep reading →
These are always great events
Watch it live. Starting at 9:30am EST USA time (11:30 pm Sydney, 9:30pm Perth, 2:30pm London, 6:30 LA.)
Keep reading →
A new study suggests that the Pacific ocean near Peru was two degrees warmer 10,000 years ago.
The current rate of warming (as estimated by ARGO buoys in the last ten years) is 0.005C per year. So we are only 400 years away from achieving the same kind of warming the Mesopotamian Farmers did.
Of course this could be just a localized warm patch, except that an earlier study showed that waters draining out of the Pacific to the Indian Ocean were also much hotter during the same era.
The present time is on the left. Graph A shows temperature proxy from Antarctic ice cores, graph B shows 0-150m depth ocean temperature in black
Keep reading →
18 contributors have published
1931 posts that generated