Cooling consistent with warming
Rodney Hide’s column in last week’s NBR commented on a recent article in Nature Communications:
The glaciers are retreating. The glaciers are retreating. Humans are cooking the planet! Hang on, the glaciers are advancing. They’re advancing. Humans are cooking the planet!
The paper, Regional cooling caused recent New Zealand glacier advances in a period of global warming, by Andrew Mackintosh, Brian Anderson, Andrew Lorrey, James Renwick, et al. (“MAL2017”), has some quirks.
It claims that “regional cooling” caused some of our glaciers to advance, which the authors claim is “consistent with a climate system that is being modified by humans.”
Rodney takes issue with that, suggesting more cautiously that regional cooling is “not inconsistent” with a human influence, and he makes a good point. You’d think that man-made global warming would be unquestionably inconsistent with regional cooling, since the cooling must be caused by natural factors—by definition, since the single human factor is warming.
Still, I don’t have a problem with the general idea of coexistent regions of warming and cooling, since there are always regions above the global average temperature and regions below the average. It’s not remotely remarkable—that’s what average means.
But since we cannot have caused the regional cooling, it’s quite a deception to describe cooling in terms of a human influence on climate and thus imply we’ve had something to do with it. For we had no hand in the cooling, and of course the paper did not study it.
Because these scientists side with the alarmist view of man-made global warming and, since their study made no finding on the matter, for no other reason, they exploit the study to send a message that we’re dicing with death by warming.
Which is incongruous here, because while the paper seems harmless, this addendum to its conclusion is conspicuous in its propaganda. The obsequious tone of it reeks of a desire to curry favour with those who might either prevent publication or limit future prospects.
I’ll post shortly on the credibility of the paper’s model assumptions, the astounding turnaround it represents on recent NZ warming and I ask what changes Brett Mullan will make to the 7SS as a result. It’s all taking a bit long, I’m afraid, and this first part has been lying around for a week, but the second shouldn’t be far away.