Reposted from Master Resource.
By Robert Bradley Jr. — May 27, 2020
The idea of presenting both sides of the debate in the name of scholarship is a non-starter with Andrew Dessler because the science is ‘settled,’ climate models have the correct physics, and he knows all he needs to in regard to climate economics, political economy, and public policy.
The Houston Chronicle‘s favorite climate scientist, Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, fancies himself as an energy and public policy expert. And so the Chronicle takes Dessler at face value well, even when he is outside his area of expertise.
Part II tomorrow dissects Dessler’s latest opinion piece for the Chronicle, A Just Transition from Fracking to Renewable Energy is Possible (February 28, 2020); this post looks more broadly at a climate alarmist swimming deep in the political soup. The question “can you trust him” inevitably arises given his anger toward dissent, his emotional public pronouncements, and his aggressive association with the Progressive Left.
I have criticized Dessler in more than a dozen posts at MasterResource. Here are some of his problems, personal and intellectual.
1. He is the alarmist’s alarmist.
Dessler’s pessimism, not unlike that of Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren of yesteryear, is blatant. Consider his statement:
If ‘some humans survive’ is the only thing we care about, then climate change is a non-issue. I think it’s certain that ‘some’ humans will survive almost any climate change. They may be living short, hard lives of poverty, but they’ll be alive. (November 20, 2018)
Other examples from “an angry scientist letting off steam via stormy tweets“:
Future humans, as they live in a climate dystopia: ‘I thought he cared about the environment.’
I find the path we’re on now — the rich world survives (if lucky), but abandons everyone else — to be morally problematic. [November 20, 2018]
2. He is certain he is correct, and the rest of the us, being dumb or having bad motives, are not.
“Dessler knows he is right,” as I have previously written:
And I do not doubt that he believes himself, being a nature-is-optimal-and-fragile ecologist at heart and not acknowledging important contrary arguments outside of his field of specialization….
Professor Dessler is certain that man-made climate change will be steep and wreck the ecosphere and economy. He attributes bad motives to those who disagree with him. And he downplays contrary argument and evidence. Sum it up and you get … an angry scientist.
3. He goes low, notoriously low, against his expert critics.
Consider this hit to the esteemed, level-headed climate scientist Roy Spencer.
… let’s not forget Roy Spencer’s window into the denial machine. You can be a scientist that no one takes seriously and national TV will come to you so you can mislead the audience. Pretty nice gig — and pretty easy. (December 18, 2018)
Insults are heaved at Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, and just about every other skeptic of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation. He refers to yours truly as a “free-market jihadist” for recommending adaptation to climate change, such as warmer weather, with such conveniences as air conditioning.
He keeps bad company with Michael “Hide the Decline” Mann by constantly retweeting Mann’s extremism and joining him in popular print. Bad weather? Heat waves? It’s human-related from our CO2 emissions. Good or normal weather? Just wait until the next bad thing. And don’t look at the statistics of human well being and adaptation. Can’t do that as a deep ecologist.
4 . Dessler cannot take what he gives.
His opponents are “deniers,” but he is not an “alarmist.” Consider this email exchange between us (February 16, 2020):
I don’t feel like talking to someone who insults me on their widely read blog. When you publicly apologize for calling me an “alarmist”, then I’ll consider answering….
I answered:
I did not understand your offense with being called an alarmist. What would you describe yourself as in the sense of seeing a dire future of climate and the need for short-term forced energy transformation? Can one buy into “the existential threat” and not be labeled an alarmist?
I assume you would call me a “denier” (those who view the future of climate optimistically under BAU).
He ended the exchange with this:
You’re absolutely a denier, Rob. The difference between us is that I don’t call you out about it. If you want a civil discussion with someone, don’t begin it with an insult — you apparently never learned the golden rule. So a public apology on your blog is absolutely in order. If not, then I won’t be continuing any discussion with you. Completely up to you.
I have invited Dessler to debate me in print or in person. He will not do so. He knows (and I know) that while I will argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but a greening agent, and the statistics of human well-being contradict a ‘worsening’ climate, he will have to argue that climate physics are known and properly incorporated into models (no and no). With climate feedback effects in open dispute, and a variety of other variables subject to investigation, I have the advantage that will come out in debate.
Regarding the solution of the Green New Deal (Dessler is all in), who really wants to promote that tub of political lard against an able adversary? But there will be no debate on this either, states Andrew Dessler et al.
5. Dessler does not seriously entertain arguments threatening his pristine worldview.
In long strings of emails, I have tried to get Dessler to fairly present opposite arguments in his textbooks and lectures. He bobs, weaves, and dodges the basic “skeptic” points. He knows (and I know) that any concessions create leaks in a fragile dike. (Per usual, he dismissed Planet of the Humans one hundred percent without comment.)
The idea of presenting both sides of the debate in the name of scholarship is a non-starter with him because the science is “settled,” climate models have the correct physics, and he knows all he needs to in regard to climate economics, political economy, and public policy. (Hardly: see the Appendix below on climate models.)
Energy density (for fossil fuels), and the environmental problems of dilute, intermittent renewable energies, particularly at scale, are brushed aside. Contrary arguments outside of his field of specialization (Vaclav Smil on energy density; Robert Mendelsohn on climate benefits and free-market adaptation) are not seriously considered in Dessler’s own textbooks that he pitches as science and not advocacy.
6. A deep ecologist, he fears human change on the ‘optimal’ natural world.
As noted in my review of his science text:
Dessler states, “when it comes to climate, change is bad” (p. 146). Manmade CO2 emissions are “perturbing” (p. 87) the climate. He adds, “any changes in the climate, either warming or cooling, will result in overall negative outcomes for human society” (p. 146).
His argument is that we have adjusted to the present climate, so any incremental change is costly and disruptive. A fixation on global averages and “stable” climate naively abstracts from natural, localized, seasonal, even extreme, change that have always marked weather.
Lacking a theory of entrepreneurship, he cannot envision how wealth-is-health capitalism and dense mineral energies tame nature, not unleash it. (The work of Alex Epstein, who Dessler dismisses along with a bevy of statistics, make this point.)
7. Dessler’s policy agenda is thoroughly statist (coercive) to correct humankind’s ‘market failure.’ Yet he maintains he is not pushing politics but speaking only as a scientist.
Dessler states:
… individual actions are not going to lead to the emissions reductions necessary to stabilize the climate. Those will require collective, coordinated action at both the national and international levels. That is why the single most important thing you can do is become politically active … and vote for politicians who support action on climate. (p. 245)
But as I complained to him (without avail):
With the very unique situation of CO2 (a global externality of positives and negatives), government mitigation is doomed to fail. Sooner or later, you will have to admit that politics failed, that fossil fuels were just too good given the alternatives of non-use, renewables, nuclear.
We have not only market failure but also analytical failure (imperfect you, me, others) and government failure, which is magnified by 190 or so governments.
With this background, Part II tomorrow will critically review Dessler’s Houston Chronicle editorial, A Just Transition from Fracking to Renewable Energy is Possible [February 28, 2020]. An energy expert/realist this Malthusian is not.
Appendix: Opening the Door to Dissent on Models
Sometimes Dessler will give an inch or two–but no more. Here he goes:
Some thoughts on models in thread form: Climate models are based on physics. Their code describes the fundamental processes that we know drive atmospheric processes: radiative transfer, thermodynamics, the idea [sic] gas law, etc.
Despite what you might hear, these models have been thoroughly tested. In fact, I’ve spent much of my career looking at model output and comparing to observations and I am constantly amazed how well climate models do.
Now this doesn’t mean models do everything well. Some process are not simulated from first-principles — e.g., cloud microphysics, which occurs on too small a spatial scale for models to resolve.
Climate models handle this by parameterization: they assume these results of these processes can be described as a simple function of the quantities that the model does simulate, such as grid-average temperature and water vapor.
This is probably the weak point in climate models, and a lot of effort has gone into improving the parameterizations. While not perfect, they are good enough that the model performance is quite impressive.
Not perfect, mind you. And a determined denier can always find something that the model does not simulate well. However, for the big things that we care about, the models do well.
Wait! So models are imperfect? Models can be tested? Ahem …. Want to debate Roy Spencer or John Christy or Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen on this? Remember what your distinguished Texas A&M colleague Gerald North said about models?
Nope–dissecting the physical science of climate change is verboten to the leading alarmists. Trust us: CO2 is a pollutant and the future climate is grim.
Such is life as a deep ecologist qua scientist. It has been the Malthusian way from at least Paul Ehrlich in the 1960s.
It’a funny how geothermal deniers call others deniers. They’re not even aware of their denial, because they follow in the footsteps of other geothermal deniers.
Convince us with some creative thought and expression of your own, as others attempt to do here? With some short essays and make us think. As Einstein said, if you can’t explain it to a 5th grader, then you probably don’t understand it yourself. And yet you insult everyone here, whether they think geothermal is signifiant as you think it is, or not. I visited your website a few times trying to figure out what you are trying to say, and just concluded you must have a PHD in something, but forgot to take English composition in grade school. I have a sibling that is a retired emeritus English prof, but yet can’t communicate with many, without lecturing or tolerating any other opinion. So no real two way communication.
As an aside, I also think there is more to geothermal, especial as to CO2 release to the deep oceans amongst the mid Atlantic range and Ring of Fire amongst many other places of the deep oceans. Which might take a great deal of time to manifest itself in the atmosphere. And perhaps more to geothermal heating in these regions which cascade causation somewhere else in the system. You could be on the verge of a great discovery, but maybe can’t express yourself easily. You sound frustrated…
Reply is below.
Earthling2, don’t rise to the bait, you will get nowhere. Do not allow this illogical fool to highjack yet another thread here. This thread is about Dessler.
short hard energy starved lives is where the AGW crowd are leading us.
More projection, Africa will never get out of poverty if they are denied cheap, reliable energy.
Don’t tell other people how to behave with others, Karen.
Luckily, Africa will not turn their backs on cheap, reliable fossil fuel energy. Unlike the West, they are not crazy.
Unluckily, they will be putting themselves in hock to the Chinese in order to get there.
Africa has a lot of cheap reliable energy in the form of wood. Huge amounts of wood are produced and consumed in Africa each year and it serves as the main energy carrier. it is cheap, often free, and reliable – matches make it work in a few seconds. It can be stored easily and replaced with little effort.
These days people have taken to grinding it into pellet form. Nothing wrong with that. Modern energy, it is called.
What the greens want is to have people who already have free or very cheap energy switch to quite expensive “renewable energy” even though they already use locally produced renewable energy.
It is interesting to me, though odd, that outsiders are so willing to invest huge amounts of money in solar and wind energy projects in Africa but are not willing to spend 1% of that on reforestation and afforestation, which would provide a great deal of benefit and re-establish forests where they have been over-cut like SW Kenya and around Lusaka.
Using wood pellets for cooking requires a modern appliance. That’s OK – using electricity for cooking also requires a specialized appliance. So what’s the big problem stopping investment in forestry? No money to be made?
It is fanatical ideas like those espoused by the radical greens who insist that mankind is over-running the planet and creating Hell on Earth. It is hard to think of any Hellish life worse than the one espoused by the target of today’s essay. It is not the physical circumstances I fear, it is living in a world ruled by self-appointed green zealots who have no shame in declaring that those who disagree with their vain imaginings are to be suppressed, de-platformed, humiliated when possible and denied careers if that can be arranged. These behaviours are monstrous.
This ridiculous sort of approach to a just and fair society would take us back to a time before the Magna Carta, a great deal of which limits the powers of the self-appointed and guarantees a fair trial based on facts submitted to an honourable judge. No such thing happens in the world of Big Green. Facts are such tiresome things, I suppose. Judges are appointed on the basis of bias. Remember the expression, “Win at any cost”? If there is no justice, no one won.
“any changes in the climate, either warming or cooling, will result in overall negative outcomes for human society”
I am sure that if the UN or KAOS or whoever, could control the average temperature of the planet with a thermostat for the last century, it would by now be set about 4 degrees C higher than the 1850 setting…
“any changes in the climate, either warming or cooling, will result in overall negative outcomes for human society”
Its interesting how religious arguments and attitudes surface in the climate issue.
We have seen Pascal’s Wager reappear as the Precautionary Principle. That is, it may be chances of global warming leading to the end of civilization are very small, but the payoff is so huge that it makes sense to act to stop it, even at huge cost.
The logical fallacy is the same as in the argument that disbelief in the religion of your choice has a very small chance of leading to eternal damnation, but the payoff is so huge it does not make sense to take the chance.
Dessler’s argument is a reappearance of Leibniz, as parodied by Voltaire in Candide. The world was made by a beneficent and all powerful creator, and therefore it must be the best of all possible worlds, and everything that happens is for the best, regardless of how it may look to us from time to time.
In Dessler’s case we have replaced God by evolution, and the argument is now that the state of the world in 1750 in terms of temperature and energy use must have been the best possible one for us, since we evolved to live in it, and therefore every change from it must be for the worse. It is in fact presumptuous for us to question the wisdom of God, aka Evolution, and even more so for us to take action which in any way changes the enviromnent.
There used to be, may still be, fundamentalist Christian sects scattered across the isolated parts of rural Europe, who rejected vaccination for their children on the grounds that it was wriong to interfere with the wishes of the Almighty, and that if He wished them to contract polio or whatever, his will must be obeyed. It was, you see, for the best, in this the best of all possible worlds. You occasionally come across similar idiotic strands of argument in Islam from time to time.
You still find people who think its God’s will that they (the Amish) continue indefinitely to farm with 18c implements and refuse all modern technology, or (in strict Orthodox Judaism) wear the 18c dress their ancestors once wore. Its the same basic argument, something was perfect at some particular time, its the will of God, and it must not be tampered with.
Hegel found a similar argument to try to show that the Prussian Monarchy of about 1820 was the final manifestation of the realization of the World Spirit and the ultimate conclusion of world history. Same argument, wrapped in different mumbo jumbo, and accompanied by a lot of nonsense about something called the ‘dialectic’.
This stuff never goes away. Like the KGB succeeds the Cheka, or the Stasi the SS. Its the same basic argument under different names. The trick is to call it out every time, and point loud and clear to the logical fallacy involved.
It could be that there is a real climate emergency, but you can’t show it like this.
Robert, Andrew Dessler is a nobody.
Why waste your time arguing with a nobody? Because the Houston Chronicle gives him space in their rag? Few, if any, intelligent people believe the MSM.
Stay safe and healthy, all.
Bob
Have you ever seen such a deep cold turn such as is currently taking place in the North Atlantic? … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-42.79,45.42,1107/loc=-46.096,40.152
Yes, the ENSO meter keeps getting closer to La Niña.
It’s been a rather cool spring in the U.S. and Canada.
Local fruit trees bore little fruit from spring blossoms this year. Even though this spring was not as obviously different as last spring. I chalk that up to current solar minimum conditions. On the bright side the bug population is way down for this time of year.
On the bright side the bug population is way down for this time of year.
Unfortunately, at least here, not stinkbugs.
So. . . . Andrew is entitled by his own assertion of a truly comprehensive grasp of this settled matter to a continually dismissive treatment of any who might cite the likes of the un-revised record of modest cyclic nocturnal warmings in mainly higher northern latitudes since several colder preceding centuries, and needs an apology from anyone happening to notice he’s declared an existential alarm over it that surely requires tossing overboard an energy-sourced boon that has lifted more people out of much shortened, often bare subsistence, famine and disease ridden lives than ever before in history. I detect here a parallel to Wm. Shakespeare having Mark Antony recurrently ironically conclude during his funeral oration after the assassination of Julius Caesar (with Brutus’ complicity), “But Dessler is an honorable Mann.”
Plus 1,000, Bob!
The Bell curve shows that half the population has below average intelligence. Apparently most of them believe the MSM and they can vote. That is probably why the majority of politicians have below average intelligence. Add in that many, if not most, unelected officials who have above average intelligence are focused on what is most beneficial to themselves and you have the present state of affairs.
You know how you know CO2 was limiting?
…the only thing you increase is CO2…everything else stays the same….and plants etc grow faster
CO2 had already lowered to where it was limiting plant growth…a little lower and they stop
First they convince you that 100ppm is a big deal…..0.0001
I guess that is true, otherwise biomass would not consume even a fraction more of our CO2 emissions. The greening earth is real, beneficial and man caused. Pretty good for about 0.0001 mole fraction.
Dessler debated Lindzen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60) and lost badly.
Yes, Dressler did a terrible job in the several minutes I watched. It was like he didn’t understand the material he was presenting. Lindzen calmly and carefully presented the winning argument.
During the debate apropos the tropical troposphere ‘hot spot’, the crux of dangerous CC™, Dessler relied on the Allen & Sherwood paper “Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced [sic] from thermal winds” (2008) that Richard Lindzen excoriated (1:18:13).
Yes, the “Allen & Sherwood” paper is my favorite example of scientists not looking at the data and understanding what its telling them, rather its looking for data to support a predefined conclusion.
Loved it when Dessler accused Lindzen of being unwilling to consider ALL data, and Lindzen basically said “why would I consider made up data.”
Laughter
No more peeps from pipsqueak
Dessler stated in a blog discussion that if observations disagreed with models the observations must be wrong. Pseudoscience at its finest!
“… individual actions are not going to lead to the emissions reductions necessary to stabilize the climate.”
Stabilize a coupled nonlinear chaotic system … of which long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible?
Really?
Hear hear!
Agreed!
Tugboat Andy, the Bizarro World version of Tugboat Annie.
Both Dessler and Hayhoe are pox on Texas university students who take their classes or any class based on their junk science beliefs..
Among other things ravaged by Panic2020 is the production of CO2 for commercial purposes. For good or evil, carbon dioxide is a byproduct of ethanol. Less demand for gasoline results in the shutdown of a large percentage of CO2. Rail shipments are also down so getting the CO2 needed at point Y from Point X is not working well.
This shortage impacts the production of soda and beer, among other things. I am not a happy camper.
May those who shut the economy and society – Panic2020 – and their family enjoy a curse until infinity and beyond.
No big loss if our soda supply is disrupted. It has virtually no nutritional value and the sugar and phosphoric acid therein contribute to tooth decay. Now caffeine in it can have a desired psychoactive effect but suppliers have used the addictive aspects of this to increase sales. Empty calories contribute to obesity and numerous health problems.
With regard to beer, we need to address this emergency at once. However, brewers produce CO2 and can capture it for reuse if necessary. Plus there are other natural sources of CO2 that could be put into service if the price is right, realizing that supply disruptions are somewhat temporary.
“No big loss if our soda supply is disrupted.”
I have to disagree. Loss of our soda pop supply would be *very* serious! 🙂
Happily, I haven’t noticed any shortage, although I have noticed the price increases.
” individual actions are not going to lead to the emissions reductions necessary to stabilize the climate. Those will require collective, coordinated action at both the national and international levels. That is why the single most important thing you can do is become politically active … and vote for politicians who support action on climate. (p. 245)”
Herein lies the problem. The Paris agreement is not about reducing GHG emissions and no global agreement is on the agenda to achieve this outcome. The fine print of these agreements states that only the developed countries that collectively make up ~35% of emissions and have not increased their collective emissions since 1980, are subject to binding cuts. The other countries which includes China and India, that now make up 65% of emissions and rising, are the only group of countries that have increased emissions in 40 years, but are exempt from making any binding cuts, with economic advancement being the noted priority in the agreement. This is the lunacy of the global climate agreements.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the framework of the climate agreements, is that they are primarily designed to both extract money in fines and also to reduce the competitive advantage of the developed countries, so as to assist China and other developing countries to expand their economies more rapidly and transfer the balance of world power in the other direction, which we see occuring. The resulting increase in CO2 is an expected outcome of the climate agreements and therefore it is of no surprise that CO2 is trending up and will continue to do so indefinitely. Obviously, the Chinese are the biggest winners in this game as they will stand to dominate world power with little opposition from other developing nations that are a long way behind in their own economic development cycles.
The strange twist of irony here is that it was the USA under Obama that agreed to give China a free CO2 pass when Paris was signed, effectively signing their own death warrant and only saved later by a Trump card.
“The strange twist of irony here is that it was the USA under Obama that agreed to give China a free CO2 pass when Paris was signed, effectively signing their own death warrant and only saved later by a Trump card.”
I would call it more of an ievitable move, considering who is doing the dealing.
China would not sign the Paris Agreement without the concessions Obama gave them, and to Obama, signig the deal, any deal, is the most important part of the effort, since he thinks it makes him look presidential and makes it look like he is capable on the International stage, but the reality is Obama’s way of negotiating is to give the other side all it wants until they are ready to sign.
It’s not quite “The Art of the Deal”. It’s more like appeasing your opponents while making the appeasement sound good to the folks back home.
Democrats are natural appeasers. It’s their first instinct when a confrontation arises among nations. Democrats are incapable of taking on dictators, and the dictators know it. We’ll be in big trouble if we put Democrats in positions of power in the future.
It’s funny: On the domestic stage, the Democrats are fierce and attack their opponents relentlessly. Too bad they couldn’t funnel some of that anger and hate at the real enemies of the U.S. Actually, it is more than too bad, it might be fatal to our nation. The way to insure this doesn’t happen is to vote the radical Democrats out of office at the first opportunity.
Tom, It’s notably gentile of you to simply connect Barack Obama with “progressive” Democrat dispositions. I suppose you may be as blissfully unaware as his image handlers would much prefer of his years of Koran memorization/recitation in Jakarta Indonesia as the adopted son of Lolo Soetoro (and whilst claiming in more recent years a politically agreeable Christian faith, long comfortably seated in “God damn America!” Jeremiah Wright’s church, he admits that the amplified Muslim call to prayer is a dear sound in his ears); that having later returned to Hawaii he would seek out youthful mentoring from a black long time America-hating Communist Party of USA member and at the time contributor of articles in the Honolulu newspaper, Frank Marshall Davis; that his ‘community organizing’ efforts according to the trenchant ‘Rules for Radicals’ directives of Saul Alinsky (also the subject of Hilary Clinton’s apple-polishing college thesis); that the initiation of his initial political campaign career for Illinois state senator was in former Weather Underground terror bomber/cofounder Bill Ayers home; and that his wife could declare that she had never been proud of her county before his election as its President.
Likely you have never been privy to say Jerome Corsi’s book “The Obama Nation, Leftist Politics and The Cult of Personality” detailing so much of what should have been known during the year of his first run for the presidency. That might well leave anyone recurrently puzzled by so many false flag middle eastern foreign policy maneuvers on his watch. For a start think of his reflex bow to the Saudi king superintending Mecca, the ‘agreeable’ Muslim Brotherhood rioting in Egypt’s ‘Arab Spring’, the unopposed militant Al Qaeda-related assault on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, and the spectacular monetization of continuing Iranian terrorism throughout the region; not to mention all the continuing deep state attempts to overthrow his duly elected successor who dared wish to make America great again.
Rob, climate models have no predictive value. Peer-reviewed, published, and correct.
Also, Andrew Dessler is almost certainly not a scientist.
I have yet to encounter a climate modeler who knows the first thing about physical error analysis. They literally are not competent to evaluate the reliability of their own models.
Climate Crisis? People are good at recognising crises that threaten them. They were on to the Covid-19 crisis as soon as it hove into view. However, when people look at the weather they can recognise certain familiar cyclic patterns to weather and climate and remember at least a few previous years that were very similar or better or worse than what they presently see and they know that you will have to do better than this for a ‘Climate Crisis’.
He’s right of course. If the heat doesn’t get you the sea level rise will. There are things like albedo loss feedback systems that could greatly accelerate our demise but of course the deniers will deny. Here’s the science of it all.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/28/the-science-of-climate-change/
And when will the seas begin to rise and get us? The tide gauge record is exceptionally clear and exceptionally available to anybody who has an interest. For the past 150 years, seas have been rising at a rate of 1 to 1.5 mm/year according to these gauges. Coastal peat bog data has shown that this rate of rise has persisted on average for the past 6,000 years. The recent satellite data suggest a rising of about 3 mm/year yet the tide gauges plod on at 1.5 or less. It seems that those who argue that the seas are rising faster because of us have a lot of ignoring to do. There are thousands of tide gauges to ignore. So when is it to begin?
” It seems that those who argue that the seas are rising faster because of us have a lot of ignoring to do.”
That’s a good way to put it, DHR.
To tell you the truth, I am amazed that sea level rise is even an issue.
Just one of many
Polar bears
Sea rise
Desertification
Just keep knocking them down
Definition of an expert – Ex= an unknown quantity; spert = drip under pressure!
Ex, has been, is my version.
English is not my native language, nor even my 2nd language. It’s my 3rd, but ironically it’s the one I know best.
It’s very simple. There’s two types of people:
1) Those who think heated water creates steam
These are scientific people.
2) Those who think steam heats water
These are not
Climate “science” teaches you to be of the 2nd type.
Obviously the 2nd type will feel “insulted”. It took them a long time to learn the art of being blind. They were schooled in the art.
How can I make it any simpler?
Yes, I’m frustrated! Someone else should have been doing what I’m doing. I should have read my own theories somewhere and said “Yes, that’s correct, of course it’s geothermal, not magic gases”.
But no one did. They were too intimidated by an irrelvant number.
Uhh, this was intended as a response to Earthling
Zoe write a paper, have it peer reviewed and get it published and you will become even more famous than you already are.
Fame is not important to me.
My idea is not patented or copyrighted.
Let others take it and promote it.
Oh?
Never drink cappuccinos, lattes or expressos?
There are whole cities that depend upon waste steam for all of their heating needs.
zoe faux science, disclaiming simple realities, again.
All those drinks require steam made with external energy. No net gain.
Burning waste requires energy too, but at least you get additional energy from chemical reactions in solids/liquids. This creates additional steam pressure which spins a turbine. Burning waste is in principle similar to burning fossil fuels.
The steam does not make anything warmer. The steam exists because energy was supplied to make the steam in the first place.
Please think before you comment. Thank you.
You can heat water by forcing steam through it, but you will never raise the temperature by blowing steam AT water. And waste steam passing through a pipe is not what Zoe is talking about here.
Is Arctic ice declining? Seemingly not.
Coeur de Lion, the Greenland ice mass diminishes by 0.004% per year (Fettweise et al. 2008) and could be gone in 25,000 years. That is if we do not drop out of the current inter glacial.
There is pessimism over much of academia. This is not atypical.
Schaefer, J. et al., 2018. Population genomics of Fundulus grandis exposed to oil from Deepwater Horizon.. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 2018. 509:82-90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2018.09.003
“While the toxic effects of oil on F. grandis at the organismal level is well established, the minimal impacts we detected to populations along the Mississippi coast likely reflects the complexity of the northern Gulf of Mexico and DWH oil spill. However, we do recognize that the patchiness of oil exposure and low genome coverage of the data limit our ability to conclude there were no DWH effects on these populations.”
We need a (no models allowed) calculation of scientific papers about the old adage on the fullness of the glass. Graduated cylinder might show some embarrassment in quite a few (how many?) fields. Even with error margins.
“calling me an “alarmist”, ” Ok. How about we call you chicken little.
Not being an even pretend Google scientist I look at the optics. Dessler is offended at being labeled an alarmist but feels free to use the “Denier” slander. Not that anyone here really needs the reminder but “Denier” is a very purposeful attempt to equate us with Holocaust Deniers. Essentially the most odious people on the planet.
As to Planet of the Humans that’s just Michael Moore turning his agitprop tactics against his own fans. The documentary is poorly sourced, makes leaps unfounded in facts, and looks like it was shot by an eight grade audio visual club. In other words it’s Michael Moore’s usual stuff. After all Moore was fired from Mother Jones for being the last part of the chicken to cross the fence. That’s quite a feat considering that Mother Jones is a curio cabinet of people among whom that’s usually a source of pride.
Andrew D. uses fossil fuels every day EVERY DAY! what a H Y P O C R I T E ! !
He should live like the Amish and communicate on clay tablets.
Yeah, but you have to oven-bake clay to make it strong enough to use. 🙂
From the article: Dressler: “Despite what you might hear, these models have been thoroughly tested. In fact, I’ve spent much of my career looking at model output and comparing to observations and I am constantly amazed how well climate models do.”
This guy is really delusional.
I would ask him what piece of evidence is it that convinces him that CO2 causes the Earth’s climate to change. One would think that a person who knows as much about the subject as this guy would have no trouble providing that evidence.
But I would bet the Farm (and I’m not kidding) that he cannot provide even one piece of evidence establishing that CO2 is causing the Earth’s climate to change.
The reason he couldn’t provide any evidence is because there is no evidence to provide.
It would be pretty easy for Dressler or any other alarmist to make skeptics look like fools if they had any evidence, but they don’t, all they have are assertions.
Isn’t that right, Mr. Dressler: All you have are assertions, not evidence. You have no evidence, yet you say there is convincing evidence. This, sir, is delusional.
Dessler. Sorry about that misspelling.
Dessler is a fool. He was conned into believing the climate lie and bet his career on it. Now he cannot afford any doubts or his mental health would be destroyed. He is not unlike a lot of other climate pseudo-scientists. If they accept reality it is just too depressing. I expect to see quite a few suicides in the field as the truth becomes harder and harder to deny.
We may be on the cusp of changes that could change the entire climate landscape. It appears La Nina is starting to form in the Pacific. Already seeing cold water surfacing from both the equatorial undercurrent and off the coast of South America. We could be headed for a 2-3 year cold event similar to 1954.
The big question is how cold. If it drives the GASTA down to the levels seen in 1999 then it will be pretty easy to claim there hasn’t been any warming in over two decades. The pause will be back.
Also keep in mind the AMO is due to change modes this decade. If that were to happen in the early 2020s then the cooling would proceed Climate science failure will be to obvious to deny.
Over the last 10 weeks we have seen the greatest unplanned reduction in man made CO2 ever, and yet I note the CO2 readings from Mauna Loa have not dropped even one ppm!
Isn’t this some kind of argument that mankind is having little or no influence? I’m not a climate scientist, but a great believer in common sense. And thanks to all the contributors to WUWT. A veritable oasis of sanity in a world of madness.
Science is a process, not an outcome. So as soon as someone says something like “the science is settled”, they are showing their ignorance. It is true that practitioners of Science assign different levels of confidence to the theories they rely on, and indeed some have been elevated to “laws”. The theories that are based mostly (or solely) on observations (not repeated experiments) are the ones that scientists (should) have the least amount of confidence. This includes areas of study such as the climate and astronomy. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t study these things, or that the those theories are automatically wrong; it just means we should be more skeptical of them. Anything else, especially consensus, is just unscientific.
Mr. Bradley’s article reminds me of Mark Twain’s warning about arguing with idiots. Twain said an idiot will take you down to his level and beat you with experience. Here, Mr. Bradley, you are arguing with such. The good news is that you are not losing, evidently Mr. Dessler is not a competent idiot. So you got that goin’ for ya.
“Wait! So models are imperfect? Models can be tested? Ahem …. Want to debate…..”
No! Not unless you’re one of the chosen ones that fully understands the amazement of how well the models do and can appropriately appreciate and place slight imperfections into context. You is not chosen one and cannot deny that.
Dessler’s a classic example of a Gaia worshipper. It’s a religion, a cult, and so there are no “arguments” to be made to convince him of anything contrary to his indoctrinated beliefs, as is so for any deeply-indoctrinated cult member. Violent deprogramming would be the only possible cure.