Compiled by Tom Scott
Please note that many of these quotes were taken almost verbatim from various sources, but I have made a effort to verify each before inclusion. (See at end for a partial list of sources)
Before getting to the climate quotes, I offer the following in order to provide a feel for the sociopolitical background in which modern climate science must operate. This article is not meant to impugn all who practice the art of climate science, but to provide the reader with some idea of the historical turmoil in the arena, some of the conclusions drawn by its practitioners, and the continuing pressures to create dire climate prognostication for self-serving and political purposes.
Two quotes from H.L. Mencken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
And three more quotes on knowledge and politics:
“When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.” -Alston Chase
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.” -Vladimir Lenin
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule.” -Saul Alinsky
And a little something to motivate all climate “heretics”.
“First they tell you that you’re wrong, and they can prove it.
Then they tell you you’re right, but it’s not important.
Then they tell you it’s important, but they’ve known it for years.”
-CF Kettering, Time Magazine July 11, 1969, pg 54.
Now, lets look into the motivational background of a few typical players in the green climate movement.
On their love for the human race:
Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.” John Holdren, now President Obama’s science czar made this statement before taking on that role: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
Thoughts on cheap power
Cheap power is the ultimate lever for multiplying human effort and productivity. The end of worldwide slavery can be directly tied to the advent of steam power, and the availability of cheap electrical power was a key enabler for the creation of a large middle class and the advancement of women’s rights, among many other profoundly positive sociological changes. What do key green players think about cheap power?
Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation: “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
-Presidential candidate Barack Obama, January 2008
With that background in mind, here are some quotes from before 1970, the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s. Recognize any of the players? Care to guess if the world has suffered any of the projected climate disasters?
Before 1970
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot…. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone… Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. -Washington Post 11/2/1922
Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” –Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923
The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age -Time Magazine 9/10/1923
America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise – New York Times 3/27/1933
A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” -New York Times – May 30, 1947
Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters. -New York Times August 29, 1954
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. -New York Times – January 30, 1961
Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age.
-Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962 The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. – Paul Ehrlich – The Population Bomb (1968)
It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by
7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. -Presidential adviser Daniel Moynihan, 1969 (later Sen. [D] from New York 1976-2000)
From the 70s
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air
pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” -Life Magazine, January 1970
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” -Kenneth E.F. Watt in “Earth Day,” 1970.
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” -Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 1970
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 1970
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” -George Wald, Harvard Biologist 1970
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” -Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
New Ice Age Coming—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes -Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971
“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” -Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971
Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. -Los Angles Times – May 16, 1972
From the 1980s
[In New York City by 2008] The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars. Why? Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up… Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.” -James Hansen testimony before Congress in June 1988
U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP – entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect -Associated Press June 30, 1989
New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now -St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989
Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. -Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989
From the 1990s
“(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots… “(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers… “The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands”. -Michael Oppenheimer, “Dead Heat” 1990
Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert – Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected “greenhouse effect,” scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990
By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle……Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…..At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. -5000 Days to Save the Planet – Edward Goldsmith 1991
“It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years,” he said. – Dr Russ Schnell, research scientist at Mauna Loa Observatory, BBC November 7, 1997
From the 2000s
“But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.” -Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund, New York Times – January 2000
Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. -Charles Onians -UK Independent Mar 20, 2000
Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is” -Dr David Viner, Senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the
University of East Anglia – Mar 20, 2000 Environmental refugees to top 50 million in 5 years –“There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change and other phenomena,” -UNU-EHS Director Janos Bogardi – United Nations University news release – 10/11/2005
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that maybe our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Professor Maslowski’s group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing models that are in advance of other teams. -BBC Dec. 12, 2007
Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. -National Geographic News June 20, 2008
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap… -Rep.(D) Henry Waxman, chair of House Energy and Commerce Committee, April 2009
Of course there is no land under the ice within 400+ miles of the north pole, and indeed the water there is about 13,000 feet deep. Mr. Waxman would seem frightfully ignorant for a man in his position. This was recorded during an interview with Tavis Smiley on his NPR TV show. Smiley is known to be very willing to assist Democrat causes, so it could be assumed that this quote could have been retracted before airing had Waxman made a timely request, or if Smiley himself had a clue how ignorant these statements were.
Although they would not admit it publicly, by now the IPPC crowd already knew that the climate had stopped warming. This is confirmed by “climategate” emails, made public in 2009.
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” —Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, Climategate e-mail, disclosed Oct. 12, 2009
Meanwhile, outsiders were also aware of the “pause” and were seeking information
through the Freedom of Information Act. So the climate science crowd began fighting back against such requests in an attempt to hide embarrassing data:
“…We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it…” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, email to Warwick Hughes, 2004
“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, Climategate e-mail, Feb. 21, 2005
“Mike [Mann], can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Trenberth] re AR4? Keith will do likewise…Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his e-mail address…We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, Climategate e-mail, May 29, 2008 (AR4 was the 4th Climate Assessment report released by the IPCC in 2007)
Whats more, they were apparently engaged in a process of “hiding” previous warm
periods so as to accentuate the warming of the 1990s. The 1940s were particularly troublesome because the historical record indicated that a few of those years had been warmer than any since. That data has since been “corrected” by adjusting downward the 1940s temperatures. For example:
“…If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip…” —Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008
And yet, with record high CO2 levels and well over a decade into the “pause”, the public was stillbeing fed the notion that CO2 was the “control knob” for warming:
“…the global surface albedo [surface whiteness] and greenhouse gas changes account for practically the entire global climate change.” —Dr. James Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity, 2009
From the 2010s
And so, since about 2010, the global temperature readings have been relentlessly “adjusted”…. almost exclusively downward for data prior to about 1950 and upward thereafter. Meanwhile, much original data have been destroyed or redacted from public view:
“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.” —Climatic Research Unit web site, the world’s leading provider of global temperature data, declaring that it can’t produce the original thermometer data, 2011
But no worries…. after all they are (climate) SCIENTISTS so we should trust that everything they claim is perfectly accurate. And if we also need to bow down to a world technocracy headed by the U.N., then no worries, because (climate) SCIENTISTS told us that we must do so, or our children will die, and who are we to ignore their predictions? After all, I bet they are almost never wrong!
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” -Saul Alinsky
And finally, to regain some composure after all of that science-ish disinformation, I suggestreading this monologue from the late George Carlin:
“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our
prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” “Plastic… asshole.” -George Carlin
As noted, this article contains a compendium of quotes available online. Some sources include:
Revisiting Climategate as Climatism Falters -Steve Gorham — June 6, 2013
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm
http://www.climatism.net/quotes-on-climate-change-environment-and-energy/
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/global-warming
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
For most of my life, the best bet has been the “Ehrlich Counter Strategy.” Find out what he’s saying, then do the opposite. Nearly 100% success.
Reblogged this on JunkScience.com and commented:
Excellent compilation
OT: Communist and Green Party coalition takes power in Germany.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11276037/German-far-Left-party-takes-state-parliament.html
We will not worry much about them. It’s three-way-coalition and the social democrats are also a part. They are also interested in the economy, more than the Greens and the Lefts. Together they have only one more vote than the opposition. If somebody makes a small mistake, they will lose the majority quickly.
Btw, Thuringia consists out of 80% forests, the rest 20% is trees. Sort of extended Eastern Bavarian wilderness. So they will not do much harm there.
“It’s three-way-coalition and the social democrats are also a part. They are also interested in the economy, more than the Greens and the Lefts.”
Well nail your hopes on todays SPD and see what it gets you. Barbara Hendricks (SPD, federal enviro minister) wants to close down coal power. The SPD today is far out cultural Marxism dominated by grievance group activists. The Maoist and Stalinist turbo engines Greens and The Left respectively will help them along in finding out what utopia lies behind the engineered collapse of society. GOOD LUCK.
Not off topic at all. Mr. Bodo looks like an evil “dear ruler” from a futurist distopia movie.
magicjava – OT: Communist and Green Party coalition takes power in Germany.
—
Because they’re just the ticket to get Germany out of an economic recession.
(if you didn’t realize that was snark you’re surfing in the wrong spot grommet)
It’s not that funny, really.
The pain is part of what makes it funny. Without pain, there is no humor. Pain is the price of it.
Remember what made Michael Valentine Smith laugh for the first time?
It has been going on longer than a century. The “villians” change, but the crises is the same.
Same as it ever was.
Heck, it was even worse.
Indeed it has been going on for over 100 years. Weather / climate scares have always been with us and people were hung due to bad weather and a changing climate in the Little Ice Age.
Then we have the most excellent Fire And Ice.
As a side note in November 2007 Pachauri has said if no action on ‘climate change’ by 2012 then it’s too late. So you have to wonder why they keep telling us that “WE MUST ACT NOW!”?
The “We only have 5 more years until it’s too late. We must act now!”, schtick will always be spewed out from the watermelons.
That time period correlates to length of time a new batch of naive, gullible kids attends university.
Leave it to our precious NYTimes to use the word “acknowledged” to buttress some wack-mobile left wing speculation.
To this day I cannot understand how Paul Erlich is seen by anyone as credible. He should be laughed off any stage or podium he gets invited to.
Of course you’ve probably taken all of these quotes out of context Anthony. Deniers do that sort of thing. Just like they impersonate other people to obtain documents and create false documents when they can’t find what they wanted. Oh, wait …
The document was compiled by Tom Scott, not Anthony, and the source for the quotations is given at the end of the document, timg56.
And of course, the reference is to Peter Glieck. Gleick. Whatever. Not worth looking up!
For a quote to be taken out of context, it must be placed in a new context. Without knowing the context these were issued in initially, this listing merely serves as a list showing what people have actually said.
+ 1
Henry Kissinger has a great story about when he was Sec. of State, an underling was caught on tape saying the Soviet Ambassador was an idiot. The defence: “My comment was taken out of context!”
Good one, RHS 🙂
And Kissinger, et. al., could easily be pictured as saying: “That denial is not even PLAUSIBLE.”
Heh.
I mean “Ron C” (nice anecdote)
RHS,
The taken out of context comment was a reference to the Team’s primary strategy to counter the Climategate emails. In other words, sarcasm.
I ferverently believe that the quotes above are excellent evidence of the mind set many in the environmental / green movement have. They are not interested in the welfare of the many, only in the welfare of a select few. Selected, of course, by themselves.
Timg56: You’ve solved one conundrum for me: who is the guy with the paper bag over his head? It’s you!!!
Harry,
It was sarcasim. Otherwise it would not have made it through moderation due to the word “deniers”. Here is another hint – “Oh wait …”
Be afraid all ye that inhabit here! Be very afraid! You will all die of the heat. But if you don’t, you will all die of the cold and it will be all your fault.
So what you’re really saying is that if a wolf that snug and warm in sheep’s clothing, like Al Gore say, plays his cards close to his Annuraaq, he just might survive an inconvenient winter?
Actually, I do want some more context for this quote.
Because as it is, it sounds like Jeremy Rifkin is an idiot.
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-04-19/news/vw-2042_1_fusion-uc-berkeley-inexhaustible
Best I could do MCourtney. And he IS an idiot.
Right, so cheap energy would allow us to use up other resources that we can’t afford now because we are limited due to… expensive energy.
And being wealthier will not allow us to innovate – only exploit.
Yes, he is an idiot. Lacking in logic, historical perspective and even compassion.
Why should his lack of imagination restrict the rest of us?
Thanks for the link. I doubted anyone could be as idiotic as the quote presented him to be. But he does appear to be such.
I first ran across Rifkin in the early days of recombinant DNA research where he did his best to stop it.
He tries to stop a lot of things. And he IS in idiot, but he knows how Washington works and how to bend it to his misguided thinking.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/11/us/working-profile-jeremy-rifkin-an-activist-takes-on-genetic-engineering.html
Lately it appears he’s been advising the EU on energy matters. That explains a lot. http://www.foet.org/activities/advising.html ends with:
I’m not so sure. Certainly what he says is idiotic (in The End of Work for example), but it seems to me that it’s those who take him seriously who are the idiots.
My background is in thermodynamics and Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book maybe 25 years ago called “Entropy”. Skimming that book was one the more bewildering experiences of my intellectual life. Here is a man who knows NOTHING of the subject, yet he writes a book that is rather widely praised by the usual suspects. There were gross, idiotic errors on every page, yet Rifkin is still considered one of the leading thinkers on the intellectual left.
TYoke, I’m of the Left, although I may not be intellectual.
Yet, being of the Left, I don’t see any justification (from the Left) for accepting ignorant prejudice over empiricism.
From the Left, dialectically:
-Put up a hypothesis.
-Put up its opposite (reaction).
-Combine the two; find the commonality.
You can’t do that if the opposite completely demolishes the hypothesis. There’s no way to step up a stage as the combination is still the “opposite”. It just doesn’t work.
Idiocy is not acceptable to the Left; I am of the Left and it’s not acceptable to me.
He is an idiot
“Because as it is, it sounds like Jeremy Rifkin is an idiot.”
That would be correct.
And not just a common or garden-idiot.
Some high level idiocy can be acquired with sufficient training, but emperor idiots are born, not made.
What many environmentalists fail to understand is that if people don’t have the energy they want nearby, they will look for it. Deforestation for firewood. India, burn noxious cow dung for cooking etc. I have a couple of large plots of land with many trees which I like. If I am denied my regular coal and gas supplies I WILL chop down those trees and I’m not joking. The law of unintended consequence will come into play and things would be worse for the environment.
Here is Haiti’s border with the better off Dominican Republic. The people on the Haiti side were not joking either. I wonder what GREENS think about this green?
http://web.nmsu.edu/~jfsavage/re_tree_haiti/haiti-island-001.jpg
Oh, I dunno. He might be an idiot, but perhaps for the wrong reasons:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
😀
I think he is the inspiration behind post normal science?
Just one word -HILARIOUS!
Don’t forget that John Holdren, Obama’s science Tzar and originator of the terms, “Climate Disruption” and “Polar Vortex”, published a book with Paul Ehrlich titled, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment”. You can read about some of his speculations on dealing with overpopulation and other matters.
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
In the book they opine that , “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endangered the society.”
Of course, they decide when the population crisis reaches that point. You establish the threshold then determine when it is reached and implement any draconian measure you want.
Not only is Ehrlich still credible, but so is his co-author John Holdren.
When I was in eighth grade, there was a table in my school lunch room selling copies of Population Bomb.
Since then, the public (and even the UN) has cooled out on population. The torpedoing of the Club of Rome (et multi alia) was the crowning achievement of “Herman’s Hermits” (i.e., the Good Old Hudson Institute that was created to support Herman Kahn, inventor of the first systematic, astoundingly correct, futurology, not its pale, narrow remnant). I was a very junior research assistant in all this, so I got to “see the movie”.
FWIW, I heard Ehrlich interviewed about 5 years back. When pushed into a corner, he grudgingly allowed there was maybe a 10% chance of disaster over the next century. Actually, I could buy that . . . but . . .
We are in a situation that Herman referred to as a “Faustian Bargain”. Faust’s deal with Old Scratch was that Faust must continue his experiment or be eternally damned. We are in somewhat of an analogous situation: slamming on the brakes will almost certainly do untold damage.
But do not fear the experiment. It is a great and glorious experiment. There is ugliness if we “roll the dice” badly. But there is such huge and universal benefit if we roll even average dice. And such unimaginable bounty if we roll well (and bet wisely, or at least not foolishly).
We should be bright with anticipation. Surf’s Up! Yet we remain, for all the world, surfers cursing the wave.
+100
I’ve been doing science mentoring for almost 20 years now – mostly field based ecology – and I wouldn’t let John Holdren within a 100 miles of any of the students I’ve worked with.
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
What a wonderful collection of doom mongering – brought back memories of children’s books with future humanity in gas masks yet here we are with better air. The doom mongering formula is to take anything bad and just add a linear trend.
Thanks Josh, excellent commentary too. The Carlin quote much appreciated and very on the money (natch!)
Damn Carlin was a funny man, on purpose, not like the other’s quoted who are funny by mistake. But the sad thing is the comical rant is more logic-based than the other quotes (save for the well-founded fears of an impending glacial period).
I totally agree with your comment. Astute observation on your part as well as Carlin’s.
OMG! Glowball warming means – WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF DIRT!
Seriously, you just can’t make this stuff up.
http://news.yahoo.com/only-60-years-farming-left-soil-degradation-continues-165713221.html
@OP:
…Two quotes …
You could have added:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair (1878 – 1968)
These quotes/predictions are almost a corollary of…
Fen’s Law:
The Left believes in none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.
The alarming predictions are wrong. All of them, no exceptions.
When one side in a debate is wrong 100.0% of the time, rational folks will disregard their continuing narrative.
“The alarming predictions are wrong. All of them, no exceptions.”
Except the sea is rising, the ice is melting and the temperature is going up. Other than that they are completely wrong.
The sea seems to be rising, but the measurements are made by institutions that have declared this is what they expect to observe. Ice is not melting: As of today, its extent is above the post 1979 average. Lower tropospheric temperature is not going up; surface temperature is, measured again by institutions that expect to observe warming, and are funded to find it.
Is it rising faster than it has in the last 200 years? Not really. The ice in summer has gone down by about 27% over the last 30 years but only about 7% in the winter. Not so alarming to me. It is 20 below zero for 6-8 months of the year in the arctic. The temperature has also not gone up much faster than it has in the past. Compare the 30 year period ending in about 1940 with that ending in about 2000. Given that climate does seem to have 30 year half-cycles, it is a bit soon to say we know for sure. I would argue that if anything there is only about a 0.1 degree increase in 30 years ABOVE what was seen just prior to the 1940 period I mentioned above. About 10,000 years ago sea level rose by ~100 feet. Don’t panic yet Simon. And don’t be concerned that 2014 in SOME temp. records is 0.01 degrees warmer than ten years ago.
Hi Simon,
Here is where you can follow the actual ice coverage: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ as well as this site: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
The slowly rising temperature and sea level changes since the 1800s are typical of an inter-glacial period. This is not cause for alarm or governmental distraction.
You can find all this on the reference pages to this blog (at the top) http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/
Assuming the context of the last 12000 years you are extremely slightly correct… so insignificantly correct that your implication is totally wrong. Icesheet melt in interstadials does cause sea rise, ice melt and rising temps, in the reverse chrono and causal order… so what?! There is no danger from CO2, the trend is insignificant and you are an idiot.
Except the sea is rising,..65% of tide gauges show sea levels static or falling.
the ice is melting….both poles have record high ice, the ice is closing in on us from the top and bottom
and the temperature is going up….not for 1/2 of the satellite record..the past ~18 years
Other than that?
Well now, Simon Says, so we can all just take his word for it.
But the sea is rising at a rate of well under a foot per century. Tidal gauge measurement (which Moerner uses) is especially encouraging (moreso than satellite data).
Ice, all in all, is declining, but slower in the Arctic than anticipated (and much due to soot, not CO2, according to the NASA/Zender and Sand studies). In the Antarctic, there has been no decline at all.
Temperatures are indeed rising, but by how much? So far it has been consistent with the rate of Arrhenius (~1.1C per doubling), but without the positive feedbacks tripling that warming.
Don’t ask “how”. Ask “how much”.
..and has been since the end of the last ice age…
Simon,
• Sea levels have generally been rising since the termination of the last glaciation over 10,000 years ago.
• Global sea ice anomaly is at ‘normal’
• Global surface temperature is at a standstill.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig68.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
Bill_W “About 10,000 years ago sea level rose by ~100 feet. ” Ha ha that quote should be in this article. Really, where did you in all the garbage spouted about climate change read that chestnut?
It helps if you know how to read and do research – http://noc.ac.uk/news/global-sea-level-rise-end-last-ice-age
That took all of about 30 seconds – and it linked to right on this site.
Jimbo
Arctic sea ice melting three times faster than antarctic growing.
You are deluding yourself if you think surface temp at a standstill. Look at the first telling graph by decade. The 2000’s have by far been the warmest decade
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/our-changing-climate
It would benefit you if you learned the difference between “warming” (an action verb) and “warm” (an adjective). Until you do, I am sorry, but your sputterings are worthless.
Except the sea is rising, the ice is melting and the temperature is going up.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Nul points.
Simon,
Then you did NOT read the standstill quotes from the likes of Trenberth (IPCC author), Professor Rowan Sutton (an IPCC founder), Dr. Hans von Storch etc. Read them again HERE.
You are deluding yourself if you think
a) There will be an ice-free Arctic within the next 35 years.
b) The death spiral has not halted.
See
Abstract – 22 APR 2010
Twentieth century bipolar seesaw of the Arctic and Antarctic surface air temperatures
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042793/full
Sunday, March 30, 2014
New paper supports the bipolar seesaw theory of abrupt climate change
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/09/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice-extent.html
Only time will tell whether you, or I am deluded I suppose.
Jimbo…”Only time will tell whether you, or I am deluded I suppose.”
And that is what keeps us all reading and watching.
Is an unemployed coal miner an ‘environmental refugee’?
Good point, Dawt.
Nope. Just coal-ateral damage a la Enviro — Timothy McVeighs (ugh).
Ooh! That was sort of dark…
@ Dawt — lol
Any one else think Paul Erlich could serve as the inspiration for Mr. Smith in the Matrix Trilogy?
http://freebeacon.com/columns/liberalism-is-a-hoax/
Sums things up rather nicely. If you think it’s about the science….no, it’s not.
It is about the science, though. I think these guys really were trying to get it right, but were not being very closely observed (or audited), and they just let their confirmation biases run away with them.
And now they have found themselves way out on an increasingly tenuous limb, trying to get the toothpaste (their reputations) back in the tube. As one wit put it, they are like Wile E. Coyote, who has just looked down and realizes there is no ledge beneath him. I wouldn’t trade places with any of them.
I am an old hand. I am not only a game designer but also a game developer. I know what a 75% * 75% * 75% * 75% chance really is. I am also painfully aware how even hardened “veteran” wargamers always treat this like a 75% chance. These guys are just as bad. Worse, even, because they don’t have the fear ingrained into any experienced wargamer.
This sounds simplistic, but it’s really that bad.
I also realize that when “simulating” (always use scare quotes!) chaotic events that are in many ways unaccountable, even in recent hindsight, such as wars, you need to do it from the top down. And always know that if your hindcast (i.e., your storyboard) isn’t cutting it, you are doing it wrong.
And even then, any future projections don’t mean a whole lot (if anything). These guys don’t get that. Neither do a lot of you right here and now, I daresay. All the eager young game designers think they can do WWII man-to-man scale. Been there, done that. It’s a phase we go through.
The current prima donnas are not unlike game designers who blow off the distress rockets put up by their developers and playtesters. But they are paying dearly for their folly, and I do not envy them. If anything, I pity them.
evanmjones
Thanks.
I think the significant thing about WUWT – for me – is how little is actually known – dead stone bonker known.
Many people know some – and think they have a hypothesis about more – in a narrow field, or perhaps highlights across several fields.
Auto
Carlin’s monologue was truly one of his best ever.
Thanks for the Carlin… I needed the laugh.
Well done, Tom Scott!
Magnificent compilation demonstrating that:
TRUTH STANDS THE TEST OF…
TIME.
(pretty hilarious…. they were SOOOO sure they were right (or, at least, so sure their l1es would never be found out by lives in being, heh, heh)).
They really, really thought they were at least mostly right.
They really, really KNEW that they did not know whether or not they were right…
yet, recklessly, intentionally, stated what they knew they did not know with any reasonable degree of certainty as
fact.
Thus, they had the mens rea to convict them of fraud.
To paraphrase: “The more Climate Changes, the more it stays the same.”
Wonderful stuff. But Carlin’s piece was the best. I will have to keep that and use it sometime. It wasn’t Graham Greene, but it was great nonetheless.
yes, and Carlin’s quotes were the only ones that made sense. May he RIP
Carlin here:
Add Gruber for some updated icing on the modern cake.
We humans appear hard wired to require crises. If one is not real and looming, we make ’em up. These quotes from those who provide the crises demonstrate that point.
Get your lists refined Jimbo..
Jones,
I have many lists but they tend to focus on a particular topic rather than general failed predictions. There are so many failed predictions and statements that I find it’s better to categorize them. Here are 3 examples.
• X days / months / years to save the planet!
• Warmer winter predictions from the past.
• Ice free Arctic predictions (some pending)
The work I have in progress is ‘the world’s FIRST climate refugees’. There are quite a number of them now. 😊 I’ll wait until I see a relevant WUWT post.
Jumbo… Do you have any info about any penilitys of any kind that have been paid by the folks that made these wrong predictions? If there have been none I can’t see why there would be much concern by those still making unfounded predictions.
Oddly enough, I find very little amusing about the vast majority of these quotes. Most seem to be from the most arrogant and, yes, violent types of individuals. (Excepting George Carlin, of course.)
Consequences of Central Control
Mao’s Great Leap Forward resulted in some 30 million deaths from famine and another 30 million fewer born.
Re: David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.”
China took such warnings seriously and implemented Brower’s plan with its 1 Child policy with consequent late term forced abortions.
Consequently about 400% as many babies have been killed or not born, about 666% of Mao’s 60 million.
The potential consequences are that:
Easing One-Child Policy May Be Too Late . For the scenario of:
Thus the dangers of centralized control by politicians latching on to alarmist’s predictions.
Don’t forget that China only began its one child policy because they’d followed Mao’s previous ‘population control’ policy of having as many kids as possible for ‘human wave’ attacks against America in WWIII.
‘Population control’ has been a disaster all over. It’s now just the politically correct term for what used to be called ‘Eugenics’.
Hi Zeke, I am also Zeke. Do you mind using an initial with your name?
Also, don’t forget that there are no extant writings by Socrates. It is called the Socrates Problem.
And thanks for the video. (:
Isn’t Steven Molyneux is a sophist himself in this video?
He is making a case for positivism, in which “sense data” and “logic” or “syllogisms” are the only valid means of knowledge.
He further asserts that anyone who refers to “tradition,” in his view, then is a “sophist.” But positivism is a type of philosophy which – in practice – is perfectly capable of confirming anything it wants to confirm, while claiming to be physically objective.
Karl Popper remarked that
emph added
In other words, “Don’t kid yourself.”
Moderators, it should say, “I have fought for the doctrine.”
“An extrapolation from present emission trends and moderate climate sensitivity yields a rate of 0.3 C per decade. At that rate, after 20 years Chicago’s summers would be as warm as New Orleans’ are now.”
Science Magazine, July 1, 1988.
New Orleans had an average summer temperature of 28.3°C in 1988. Chicago (O’Hare) had 24.2°C. The only year that was bettered was 1995 (24.8) and 2012 (24.5). from GISS.
Fantastic !!!
And in the end, the only place needing evacuation was Paul Ehrlich’s office, because of the stench of dead predictions.
Paul Ehrlich has been one of the great success stories of our time, made a fortune spinning serial disasters that never happened out of nothing that was ever real. Just that the definition of success in his case, really should have had him in an iron mask in a specially rebuilt Bastille.
Wow. Just wow. And so many of the climate obsessed are literally unable to connect this list of lunacy with the idea of questioning why they believe a climate apocalypse isa sound idea.
There’s a question that has always bothered me. Why do all the prominent people who preach the dangers of CAGW have such enormous carbon footprints themselves, and why don’t they seem to be bothered by it? If CO2 was going to destroy the world as we know it, wouldn’t they want to change their own lifestyles and lead by example? Either they don’t really believe their own propaganda, which means they are charlatans. Or they actually want a catastrophe to occur so they can ride in on their white horses (or private jets) and save the world. The latter would indicate that they have a type of mental illness that is very closely related to Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome. These people are constantly inventing some looming disaster lurking just beyond the horizon (or in the deep oceans) that only they can save us from.
Louis says, “Why do all the prominent people who preach the dangers of CAGW have such enormous carbon footprints themselves, and why don’t they seem to be bothered by it? If CO2 was going to destroy the world as we know it, wouldn’t they want to change their own lifestyles and lead by example?”
In an interview with Tom Hanks about the Baby Boomer Generation, he remarked that the Boomers started out saying that they would “not be materialistic,” and then became incredibly wealthy in the 80’s. Now that they are older, and the environmental “harm” of “materialism” is revealed, the Boomers now wish to make up for their mistakes. This means that they want to undo the harm of their own “materialism” by reducing the “materialism” of others. They are now in NGOs and academic positions, busily working against the “materialism” which they failed to keep out of their own lives. This is one cute argument that is being made.
Also, anyone wealthy enough can always purchase carbon offsets or hand money to someone who says they will plant a bunch of eucalyptus trees for your jet plane flights. And this makes sense to the uber wealthy. It keeps all of that naughty luxury and opulence in the caste.
Did Hanks say all of that, or just the first sentence or two of your second paragraph? It would make me quite happy if he did.
It’s an old story. Like Bud Fox says in the movie “Wall Street” (Oliver Stone’s only good one, IMHO):
Hi Bart,
You can find the comments by Hanks on the video entitled, “Did the Boomers Destroy the US,” dur. 8:53 by IndependentPhillyPA.
Thank you for reading. I am always interested in why the very wealthy, esp. of Hollywood and the US, are so interested in deeply impoverishing and impairing others. It seems interesting to study because I do not believe that many of them would actually be enriched in any way by forcing a “sustainable” standard on others. I have been researching for some time. So I do not share your optimism about the actor’s attitude.
Zeke: I’m a ‘Boomer’ and carry no guilt about my materialism when I was younger. That was the way it was. Today I have all that I need, do as I want and demand nothing of others.
I have done no harm to the environment directly but as part of a society, yes we did cause some harm to the environment indirectly, and a lot of those harms have been reversed. We as a society have learned from some of our mistakes and corrected what we have done where we could. Yes, there is still stuff that needs to be done and that will come, eventually.
My biggest wish is that governments in general would quit wasting money on a non-problem such as the BS of GW / CC. Just imagine what stuff could have been done had all this wasted money been used in areas where it could have caused some good.
To me the waste is the crime. Not that I was materialistic in my youth.
I have enjoyed my life and my only wish is that my children will enjoy theirs and that everyone else may be as blessed as I was.
@PeterK
What you say is too general to make out any specific meaning, but thank you for your thoughts and experiences! I am not very pleased with the actors and actresses who vacation in Cuba and then come home and play act as WWII veterans, or any other great American historical figures. It is just extremely tiresome to hear them talk about materialism, or anything else.
Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
But we’re still supposed to listen to them.
small correction: “Keith” referred to must be Briffa not Trenberth (who is Kevin)
Has something gone wrong with the 80s and 90s in the list?
‘There is nothing new under the sun’. Ecclesiastes.
“Everything’s done under the sun”. Pink Floyd (‘Dogs’ from Animals).
(The next line is “And you believe at heart everyone’s a killer”.)
stop laughing!
5 Dec: Fox News: Barnini Chakraborty: ‘Game we can’t win’: Coal states brace for growing number of plant closures over EPA rules
Though estimates vary, according to the Institute for Energy Research a total of 37 states including Wyoming are seeing closures. The group lists nearly 170 plants that have closed or are closing, or are being converted to other purposes…
The Institute for Energy Research, in its latest report, predicts more than 72 gigawatts of “electrical generating capacity” are going offline. “To put 72 GW in perspective, that is enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes – or every home in every state west of the Mississippi River, excluding Texas,” IER report says…
“I’m trying not to sound alarmist, but it seems to me the scale at which this would affect us, because we are exporters of electricity and coal, I think it will impact our economy in a materially adverse way,” Minier said in a recent interview with the Casper Star-Tribune…
But the Obama administration still has plenty of defenders in its regulatory push.
Dean Baker, a D.C.-based economist and the co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says shutting down coal plants could be good for not only the environment but also the economy.
Baker told Think Progress that clean alternatives to coal – not just natural gas but wind and solar – are competitive, so switches should come with minimal economic hassle. He also believes that renewables can work in tandem with natural gas to make the transition smoother…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/05/coal-power-plant-closures/
pat,
did you see the editorial in this past weekend’s WSJ regarding President Obama’s law professor Lawrence Tribe. Prof Tribe is representing the Peabody Coal company in a lawsuit against the EPA.
So on one side of the ‘debate’ we have ALL the world’s science academies, all scientific professional societies, all major universities,10s of thousands of peer reviewed journal papers, NASA, NOAA , nearly all scientists working in the field, the IPCC, the Pentagon, Exxon, and Chevron. And on the other side…Monckton (a non-Lord according to the House of Lords) and a Journalism major, ex-weathermen,no peer reviewed journal papers, bloggers, and various amateur non-Scientists who post on WUWT but never publish.
A non-scientist watching this ‘debate’ might reasonably conclude that it’s not much of a contest.
“A non-scientist watching this ‘debate’ might reasonably conclude that it’s not much of a contest.”
Unless he actually checks the so-called scientists’ predictions against the facts, and sees how wrong the predictions have been. Oops.
Yeah – how could those highly trained, published and well-funded scientists be so wrong?
ALL of whom depend solely upon public funding, and receive much, much more of said funding with a ‘crisis’ to deal with, and who mostly now only need the correctly phrased hat tip to the issue to keep the funds flowing.
Other than that, I have no reason to doubt them whatsoever.
“ALL of whom depend solely upon public funding.”
This fact should have to be included in every media mention of crisis-mongering.
Assuming for a moment that the battle field is as lop sided as you claim (it isn’t) might I inquire as to why your side is still losing?
… and then we have Warrenlb fully ‘pwnd’ by the illusion.
Warren – have a read of ‘The Groupthink Trap’
http://www.henmanperformancegroup.com/articles/Avoid-Hidden-Traps.pdf
Appears to be a good warning for denizens of WUWT.
Notice warrenlb’s projection.
No boardrooms or global conferences to intimidate members here, Warren. Just a disparate group of unpaid volunteers who want truth and integrity from our institutions..
Hansen said that to a reporter, not to Congress. And he said “in twenty years,” not “in 2008. Later he and the reporter agreed that he said “in forty years.” So they say.
“Later he and the reporter agreed that he said “in forty years.” So they say.”
=======================================================================
Hum? I guess Hansen wants to be wrong twice.
It is curious how Warren believes all the absurd predictions, which failed to happen, because some political leaders of Post Normal institutions support them.
“So on one side of the ‘debate’ we have ALL the world’s science academies, all scientific professional societies, all major universities,10s of thousands of peer reviewed journal papers, NASA, NOAA , nearly all scientists working in the field, the IPCC, the Pentagon, Exxon, and Chevron.”
. . . the harder they fall.
You need to consider that those institutions made those pronouncements a number of years ago. If they had known then what we know today, it is extremely doubtful they would have taken the positions they did.
A non-scientist watching this ‘debate’ might reasonably conclude that it’s not much of a contest.
I agree. (Which is why such pronouncements should be more carefully considered.)
If you want to see how it works in practice, read this article :
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/05/Investigation-how-green-activist-scientists-rigged-an-EU-pesticide-ban-costing-farmers-and-businesses-billions
Warren, you may not by a Brit, so you may not know this, but there are very many noble Lords of hereditary title who are not allowed to sit in the House of Lords. Viscount Monckton of Brenchly is one. He has a perfectly legitimate case for being allowed to sit but the Government make the laws which we and he abide by. As things stand, of all the very many hereditary Peers of the Realm only 92 are allowed to sit in the HoL. Your snide remark is unwarranted and inaccurately directed, but I doubt this explanation will deter you from offering it at every opportunity. You will be the lesser man for doing so.
Now all that’s out of the way, I bet you would not debate him.
Warrenlb:
HotWhopper is what you have.
WLB says:
…ALL the world’s science academies, all scientific professional societies, all major universities,10s of thousands of peer reviewed journal papers, NASA, NOAA , nearly all scientists… &blah, blah, etc.
Note the “nearly” all scientists. That says it all.
If it were not for wlb’s constant hiding behind the logical fallacy ‘appeal to authority’, he wouldn’t have much to say.
Empirical evidence solidly refutes the runaway global warming scare. There is no credible evidence that supports it. The alarmist crowd cannot change science, so they fall back on logical fallacies like the ‘appeal to authority’.
Albert Einstein faced the same fools and malcontents. Who prevailed then? Einstein, or the 100 ‘esteemed’ scientists who signed an open letter saying his Theory of Relativity was wrong?
Same-same.
wlb could get ten thousand organizations to insist that global warming is gonna getcha. But scientific evidence rules, not the opinions of bought and paid for organization boards.
Actually when I came into the debate all I saw were a bunch of monkeys with fancy-sounding degrees.
Higher education doesn’t fix willful ignorance or stupidity.
Warren – One can only hope that you fully understand what the term “useful idiot” means! GK
warren,
I have two Master of Science degrees. Which may explain why I also know what “peer reviewed” actually consists of. Here is a hint, I doubt it is what you think it is.
I’d also be careful to use the term ALL. Because it clearly is false. There are thousands of scientists who hold a wide range of opinions on global warming which do not include catastrophe. It is probably the reason some people try so hard to push the 97% concensus talking point, up to and including the fabrication of evidence.
Warrenlb knows nothing about debates. I’ve got a folder full, and skeptics have won every debate.
Now the only place they will ‘debate’ is here, where there’s no official moderator to throw out their logical fallacies like the ‘Appeal to Authority’.
As a censorship-free site, people like warrenlb can post all the pseudo-science, deflection, and logical fallacies they want. But in the end, facts trump rhetoric, and that’s why skeptics are soundly thrashing the climate alarmist clique.
Sweet irony, how do I love thee. By my reckoning, climate contrarians are at step two. Given how long it’s taken to reach that point, I often wonder what blogs like this will be saying some centuries from now when gondolas are the primary means of surface transportation in downtown Miami.
Sweet practicality, how I do love thee…
“…some centuries from now…”
Have you considered the possibility Miami would easily cope or move, should the seas continue to rise?
Miami won’t move. For example, look at New Orleans. NO is already below sea level, and they don’t “move” they just build the dikes and levees higher. Moving is not an option.
Ok, so they will cope.
markx,
Yes, I’ve considered the possibility that Miami will cope. Though it will probably be bass boats, not gondolas. Speaking of practicality, our betters have had somewhat to say on the topic: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” ~Benjamin Franklin
Speaking of ounces and pounds, I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to “burn” ounces of uranium over gigatons of coal, but again that could just be me trying to piss everybody off.
Brandon. On that point (nuclear power) we happen to be in complete agreement.
It would be being widely used now except it has been demonized and regulated slmist to a standstill.
I also see it as the ‘get out of jail free’ card should things appear to be going to sh*te rapidly, but I fear it would be not be played.
D. Socrates says:
Moving is not an option.
Moving is always an option.
I keep searching, but I have yet to find a comment by Socrates-Grouse that doesn’t have big holes in it.
Markx, I also agree with Brandon Gates: nuclear power is the answer to a lot of our energy problems.
“Moving is always an option”
Tell me, how do you move these buildings?
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/62320079.jpg
They don’t float you know
Nor do they last forever. But I guess you thought they did.
These days, most Miami residents are very adept at building boats and rafts. That’s how they got there.
There is no threat of the Atlantic inundating Miami. How do I know this? The price of coastal real estate remains very high.
“There is no threat of the Atlantic inundating Miami”
…
Yup….no threat at all
..
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2014/April07/072.html
“Prophecy Newswatch”?????
LOLOL!!!
I guess if that’s the best you’ve got, then that’s what you use. *snort!*
They’ll cope because it’ll be the same then as it is now.
Even were that not the case, if people centuries advanced from now can’t manage with a little bit of water, then the apocalypse has already fallen, and there’s nothing but zombies wandering about anyway.
So your acknowledging that fossil fuel usage will continue its steady rise of usage for centuries to come?
I see step three as now the climate scientist have rediscovered ENSO cycles, and they also now consider other possible reasons for ice to increase besides atmospheric T.
dbstealey,
AGW aside, there would be immediate air quality and thence health benefits. Between them, the NIH and WHO estimate that coal-fired plants shorten the lives of 30-60 k people per year in the US. For reference, 60 k is approximately double the annual rate of automotive-related deaths. Using the worst case estimates of deaths from Chernobyl and Fukashima (several hundred thousand at the VERY outside) per kWh, mortality due to fission power is two orders of magnitude less than coal. I worked it out, for the US that means the risk of fatalities per year by a direct coal to nuclear replacement would be on the order of 100. Considering that’s based on worst-case estimates, as well as the fact that Chernobyl was a seriously flawed and unsafe design and Fukushima’s siting and layout were doubly ill-conceived — from both those lessons we can likely do better. At least as well as the French, amirite?
Those in the environmental left who have and continue to staunchly oppose the nuclear option egregiously shoot their own cause in the foot, which quite frankly pisses me off.
Regarding nuclear related fatalities:
Not counting those first responders who fought the fire, I believe the number of fatalities to the public was arounf 1,500. Mostly due to thyroid cancer, which in many of the cases could have been prevented by timely dosing with iodine.
It is not talked about, but many of the people who lived within the exclusion zone (which I believe is only a 15 mile radius around the plant) and were evacuated have returned. The government keeps new folks from moving in but decided to let people living there prior to the accident return. To date studies have not shown any increase in cancers or death rates among these residents.
As for Fukashima, I don’t believe there has been a single reported fatality from that site.
“Shorten the lives of”? And yet, life expectancy seems to be longer now than ever it has been.
markx,
Three Mile Island following so close on the heels of The China Syndrome film could not have been a more unfortunate accident of coincidence. The sentiment of fear was already there, but let me be clear, it’s not only liberals who oppose nukes. When NIMBY takes hold, politics goes out the window and nearly everyone is anti-nuke — at least a sufficiently loud and significant minority across political boundaries. I do think most of the red tape at the NRC can be chalked up to activism on the left. Dysfunctional American politics at its very worst.
I’m not exactly clear on your meaning. The way I look at it, nuclear is the desperate option of last resort. Either that or geoengineering. I much prefer the former, and do fear that card won’t be played any time soon simply due to ideological momentum coupled with irrational fear. I cheered when Hansen and friends wrote their open letter. I’ve seen a smattering of formerly nuclear skeptic greens come out and say, “You know what, I’m changing my mind to cautious support.” It’s a start. More please.
Brandon,
There are several nuclear reactors within 60 miles of my residence. They are building two new ones as we speak. There is resistance, but most of it is bused in from out of state. The lawsuits that have added about a billion dollars and five years to the construction were filed by out of state environmental-leftists groups. Funny, no conservative group has been seen at any of the demonstrations of stupidity put on by these groups and very very few locals at all.
If green groups are starting to change their minds publicly, they sure haven’t shown it in what they actually do or support!
Owen in GA,
[facepalm] One of the objections I get from my fellows on the left when I state my case is, “Yabbut, nuclear isn’t cost effective.” The DOE numbers don’t seem to think so, but perhaps they don’t take the pre-construction litigation into account.
Like I said, it’s a smattering. Plus, you and I probably read different newsrags. Cheers. 🙂
Brandon, what do you suppose the design life for those buildings is?
Keitho, The buildings in Miami? On the order of a hundred years I’d guess.
That being the case they will have been demolished before the ocean has risen by 200mm and if the sea level is in fact rising at that rate for the next hundred years they will surely be replaced with buildings further away from and above the ocean. It is unclear just how much of a problem this is for anyone.
You guess wrong. Try less than 100.
Keitho,
If they’re smart, they won’t be building any new construction close to shore. It’s difficult to tell how much smart money accepts AGW as a legitimate risk. Regardless, for your analysis, it would probably be a good idea to figure out the age of the buildings in the risk areas. Also consider that dirt itself is worth quite a bit of money in high density metropolitan areas. Manhattan springs to mind.
No kidding. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but the various models being used to assess this kind of stuff leave much to be desired. Typically people who do a thorough, comprehensive job of risk analysis tend to see high levels of uncertainty as a risk factor in and of itself.
philljordan,
I guess they don’t build them like they do in Manhattan.
Really? How many sky scrapers in Manhattan are over 100 years old?
You display your ignorance of building codes.
when gondolas are the primary means of surface transportation in downtown Miami….
good Lord….you read that in the Miami Herald and believed it…..they drag that same story out every year during the King tide
Here if you’re still scared, you’re an idiot
Latitude,
I don’t read the Miami Herald. And you missed the point of course, which is that if Downtown Miami were consistently flooded several centuries from now, blogs like this might still be asking what the fuss is all about.
Away from the coastal cities, which already have built up seawalls and other flood control measures in place, the concern is for shallow sloped shorelines. The typical slope of a Fla. beach is 1/150, much less in areas. Depending on whose estimates you wish to believe (I’m guessing none) we can expect between 20 and 75 cm sea level rise in Florida between now and 2100. x 150 / 1000 = between 30 and 112 m of waterline advance. Or between a third and a whole football field. That’s a lot of real estate, especially when you consider the situation is roughly the same along the entire Gulf Coast and throughout the Caribbean.
I’m not at all scared, I’ll be long dead.
Warrenlb,
Some day I may take the time to educate you on the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Einstein knew quite a bit about that one.
And Brandon Gates says:
I often wonder what blogs like this will be saying some centuries from now when gondolas are the primary means of surface transportation in downtown Miami.
I often wonder how long you will act like a chameleon, and pretend to be a scientifc skeptic.
You are incapable of “educating” anyone.
False. DB has been educating for more effectively than most for many years.
Now, he has been “educating them” properly and accurately – not propagandizing them to a faith in the religion you believe in, but then again, your claims are to be evaluated on their own merits (ie, none) and shown wrong when they are wrong.
Db belittles people with opposing opinions
And he is not capable of presenting both sides of a controversy without bias.
A poor choice for a “educator”
David Socrates says that I am…
…incapable of “educating” anyone.
In fact, I’ve helped lots of folks, and gotten kudos off and on for my unpaid efforts. But it takes the right attitude to receive education.
I cannot educate Mr Socrates. That is unpossible, because his mind is closed tighter than a submarine hatch. He has made up his mind, and mile-thick glaciers could descend on Chicago again, but he would still be arguing his appeal to authority fallacies. And when something is factual, it is not belittling. It is stating a fact.
I would much prefer to debate the issues, but the alarmist clique won’t. They shy away from debating the fact that without measurements of AGW, all they are doing is making assertions; conjectures. They are explaining their pseudo-science Beliefs to others.
AGW does exist, IMHO. I’ve stated that here for many years. But there is no measurable evidence for it now, because at current CO2 concentrations it is just too tiny to be measurable. It is swamped by background noise.
CO2 causes a slight greenhouse effect. But that effect is *very* small at current concentrations [≈400 ppm]. Since almost all of the warming effect occurs almost entirely within the first ≈100 ppmv, even increasing CO2 by a whopping 25% from current levels would not cause a measurable rise in T. I can show that, but as usual the alarmist contingent doesn’t want to debate real science. And as stated, Mr Socrates is not educable. Since they cannot find any empirical measurements of AGW, they fall back on their tired and busted Appeal to Authority fallacy: everyone else says CAGW is a-comin’, so it must be! heh
Albert Einstein was very familiar with that particular fallacy. He answered the 100 scientists who tried to use that fallacy on his Theory of Relativity:
Einstein said, ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
Of course, just like the alarmist crowd, those 100 scientists had no facts — only their academic Authority, which as we know was flat wrong. The current state of climate alarmism is the same.
Catastrophic AGW has been repeatedly falsified. There are thousands of papers questioning that presumption. Here is but a tiny sample of peer-reviewed papers discrediting cAGW and the ‘carbon’ scare:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
– J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard
– Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
– Joel M. Kauffman
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 199
– Sherwood B. Idso
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ’storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– R.S. Courtney
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– R.M. Carter
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
– R.H. Essenhigh
Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 200
– Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
– C.D. Idso
Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 200
– Patrick J. Michaels
Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
– W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
– Dennis Ambler
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
– Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
– M. Leroux
Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 200
– Serge Galam
Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
– E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
– S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
– A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
– Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
– L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
– Olavi Kamer
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
– A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
– Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 200
– Klaus-Martin Schulte
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
– Olavi Kärner
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
– Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
– Olavi Kärner
The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
– N. Calder
The Cause of Global Warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
– Vincent Gray
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
– Douglas J. Keenan
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
– David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
– H. Jelbring
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes
The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 199
– Vincent Gray
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander
The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
– Wojick D. E.
“The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
– Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
There are literally thousands more papewrs questioning the supposed “consensus” view. The entire climate alarmist narative has been so throughly debunked that the only way their lemmings can argue at all is by using discredited logical fallacies like the Appeal to Authority.
“I would much prefer to debate the issues,”
…
I’m still waiting for you to post the graph or the data that shows the change in T that has caused the 40% rise in CO2 to 400 ppm
…
Should be easy for you.
…
Why haven’t you done so?
“I’m still waiting for you to post the graph or the data that shows the change in T that has caused the 40% rise in CO2 to 400 ppm.”
Here, and integrated here. Pretty easy, all right.
David Socrates does not understand the difference between a temperature anomaly and a temperature trend. If he did, he would not ask his beginner questions.
I would helpfully explain to D. Socrates the difference between a temperature trend, and a temperature anomaly. They are not the same thing. But it is not possible to educate him, so I won’t bother trying. Sad, really, because he has a lot to learn.
My sincere suggestion is for D. Socrates to read the WUWT archives for a few months at least. Keyword: CO2. From his comments it is clear he doesn’t even know what he doesn’t know. As a result, he doesn’t know the right questions to ask.
David Socrates,
A quibble if I may. CO2 is responsive to temperature, no doubt about it. I infer that db thinks ALL of the CO2 rise since the industrial revolution is in response to temperature. If so, that’s patently bonkers, but also not out of the realm of my experience on the Innerwebz.
You infer incorrectly. But do not let that get in the way of your trolling.
Hey Bart, your first WFT chart with CO2 data?……darn, you used “derivative”…….WRONG….
Your second chart uses “integral” on the mean……WRONG
..
Shoddy math on your part.
Or do you even know what you are doing with “derivatives” and “integrals?”
What is so sad about your position and fellow travelers is that good people like dbstealey tirelessly continue to try to make you understand some simple facts.
They could conserve their time and energies much better by simply suggesting you google greenhouse co2 generators and go to some of the many links, most of which are not addressing directly the issue at all, and are far more powerful refuters for that.
But for one that does :
http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html would be a good read.
Science fact one: While Darwin’s ‘Macro’ (Dinosaurs to Birdies) theory of evolution has many who disagree with it, the one theory I have never found anyone, ‘religious’ or not that was at all contentious about. That is Darwin’s ‘Micro’ theory – or adaptation to an environment over time/generations. The reason most will accept that is that it is observable, you can experiment with it, it happens in the real world in real time.
Science fact two: Most plants begin to really flourish at atmospheric Co2 concentrations over 1000 ppmv and most do best in the range 1-3000 ppmv. Most will begin to ‘Starve’ – not reproduce- and die when concentrations fall below 180ppmv.
Given those easily discoverable facts, the amount measured (280ppmv) when they began to panic, was in fact getting perilously close to Biosphere death, the climb since to 400ppmv means all life on earth ‘dodged a bullet’.
SC Fact three: Given the above and applying Darwin’s theory of Micro-evolution which all accept because it happens all around us all the time, means that at some time in the past, the plants must have adapted to Atmospheric environments that included a Co2 mix of many thousands of ppmv – man himself can happily live in an environment of 4,000 ppmv for extended periods of time and 8,000 ppmv for shorter periods.
Yet while plants, humans and animals were adapting to these various Co2 levels- many times higher than Hansen et al prophesied meant the heat doom of of Earth, we have continued and prospered.
The Sehal in Africa is greening as are many other marginal deserts around the planet. In other words, the biosphere flourished with much higher Co2 levels in the past and is showing every sign of beginning to flourish in the tiny increase from 280ppmv to 400ppmv that has occurred over recent years – a tiny fraction of which is being added to the atmosphere by Mankind.
True environmentalists – not the ones who are using this as an excuse to impose their Malthusian death-cult on humanity – should be marching, shouting, screaming for nations to bring on line technology to push enough Co2 into the atmosphere to raise it to at least 1500ppmv. We already know it wont hurt anything but we might well find the deserts ‘Blooming like a Rose’ and food cultivation receiving a massive boost.
Meantime we can be putting maybe 10% of the wasted money to use to assist the developing and third world to gain the advantages our hard-working and inventive forefathers gave us. Destroy malaria and other diseases, provide clean water and irrigation for all so that they can feed themselves. Eliminate the dictators, so many of which dominate the UN and free the people, not with more terrible wars, but by education, food and power supplies.
It is the overwhelming priority of the paymasters of the ‘global warming’ scam – with billions of dollars at their disposal , that this does NOT happen.
They have told us, we have no excuse, any more than those who should have read ‘Mein Kampf’ had for being surprised at Hitler and his actions.
The elite want the population dropped from almost 8billion to 100 million. How do you think this can happen if we make Africa a peaceful productive continent. If India continues to develop and feed her millions and provide the food and water to do this?
On top of this they want to De-industralize the developed nations and squeeze the populations into vertical war-zones (see Agenda 21). I can only surmise that they believe that robotics will advance enough to provide this small elite with all their luxuries, without inconvenient mankind around to spoil the view.
Yet you still swallow their flimsy excuse for all this to be brought into being, unlike the Wizard of Oz, there is not even a curtain, we know to a large degree who wants this and who is paying for it, they just think we are too stupid, blind and divided to actually act against them.
With your comments in this thread I fear they may well be right…
Aidan,
Thank you. Excellent post.
=======================
Brandon Gates says:
I infer that db thinks ALL of the CO2 rise since the industrial revolution is in response to temperature.
You ‘infer’ wrong. Why can’t you read the words I wrote? The result of your inference is that you have erected a strawman, and now you are arguing with that.
Here is my position, as clear as I can make it:
1. All empirical evidence shows that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, on all time scales out to hundreds of millennia
2. There is no evidence that shows that ∆CO2 causes ∆T
3. AGW exists, but it is too small to measure
To infer that I said that “ALL” the rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution is caused by human activity is simply a baseless assumption. “All” is nowhere in my comments.
Brandon has apparently already decided what I think, and he is arguing with that. But as I show here and elsewhere, that is simply wrong. It is merely an incorrect assumption, and you know what they say about assumptions…
Time to climb down from your incorrect belief, Brandon. Next time, please cut and paste my words, verbatim. Then make your comment. You know, like I do with you and others.
“2. There is NO evidence that shows that ∆CO2 causes ∆T”
..
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
D. Socrates,
Nice try, but no kewpie doll. The ‘conclusions’ in that paper are based on what is “suggested”. A suggestion is not empirical evidence.
Feel free to try again, but next time post a link that conclusively shows evidence that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. IF you can find one.
That link shows no conclusive evidence of anything. It is just rent seeking by academics riding the grant gravy train. If those authors posted an article here based on “suggestions”, they would be ripped to shreds.
You said there was “NO” evidence, and I showed you some.
..
Pay close attention to the sentence, “Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. ”
…
There is your evidence
..
You lose
dbstealey,
My mistake. I retract my presumption with apologies to you for my prejudice.
Speaking of strawmen, AGW theory is NOT that CO2 will cause consistently consecutive annual, or even decadal, rises in temperature. Never has been the hypothesis, and never will be the theory because OBVIOUSLY the data don’t support that conclusion. That very long list of skeptical papers you listed earlier are a testament to this, and AFAICS are examples of excellent science at its very best.
Thousands of millennia. Nowhere is that more clearly established than over the last million years of icehouse earth and that regime’s interglacial cycles. As I’ve written before, that relationship is also clearly evident at interannual timescales. The global seasonal variability in CO2 is less temperature related, more related to the unequal distribution of landmasses, hence terrestrial photosynthetic vegetation, between the NH and SH.
On the scale of 2+ centuries of increasing industrialization, CO2 clearly leads temperature, not lags. Nowhere is that more apparent than over the past two decades, AND there have been other periods during the instrumental record. I posted this chart last night on a different thread: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSbE1Rb2xobGlVdkU
You already know about 1950-1969 because you’ve generated a similar plot on WFT. 1880-1889 is the same story: declining 20 year temps, rising CO2. That’s an inverse correlation, IOW an example of CO2 NOT responding to temperature. [1] I have not seen you be clear about that in your comments, perhaps you have done elsewhere — regardless, this is from whence my mistaken inference springs.
Rubbish. Look at the plot linked just above.
Bollocks. Look again at the plot linked just above.
I can, and will, unflinchingly admit to prejudice and apologize for mistakes I’ve made based on unwarranted assumptions. Now you know.
—————————————
[1] As well as picture perfect examples of temperature not rising in lockstep with rising CO2 over periods of decades.
Brandon Gates,
Where did you get your chart? What is the provenance? Because it seems to contradict WoodForTrees database. Everyone accepts WFT. Why should we accept something that contradicts it?
In fact, your link appears to be merely an overlay of CO2 and temperature — and the temperatures are on wildly different time scales [1995 – 2014; 1950 – 1969; 1880 – 1899, but all on the same chart].
There is other, similar, verifiable data that shows CO2 always lagging temperature. That being the case, something is wrong. Here is more evidence. And more. And more. And I have many more charts, always showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2.
Maybe every one of those charts are backward. And maybe all the other charts showing the same cause and effect are wrong, too. But that’s not the way I would bet.
Finally, you say it is “bollocks” that there are no measurements of AGW. Fine, I have been asking someone, anyone, to post verifiable, testable, empirical measurements, showing the fraction of AGW out of total global warming. Post it as a percentage, please, quantifying AGW in such a way that it is testable, acceptable, and agreed to by scientists on both sides of the debate. I want a measurement of AGW. Every physical process can be measured, so long as it is not so tiny that it is beneath the background noise level.
Post your quantified measurements of AGW. That is what I want to see.
Socrates-Grouse says:
You lose
For someone who does not understand the meaning of scientific evidence, my response: Pf-f-f-f-f-ft
Go away, until you learn the difference between conjecture and evidence.
dbstealey,
I made it. The data are from HADCRUT4 global temperature series, just as indicated in the legend. CO2 from KNMI Climate Explorer.
You speak for “everybody”? How do you know what “everybody” thinks? Why should I listen to “everybody”? Remind me sometime to teach you about the fallacy of appealing to popularity.
ROFL! Well that’s just it in a nutshell, isn’t it. [shakes head] Ok, try this for starters. The WFT index doesn’t go back to 1850, it only goes to ’79, the beginning of RSS and UAH which are two components of it. How can HADCRUT4 contradict WFT over a range WFT doesn’t even cover?
See also my previous prediction that you would complain about “not the right kind of data”. You’re running that script to textbook perfection right now.
Visually yes, but I didn’t just “overlay” them arbitrarily. The “Tco2” curves are a calculation: 2.41 * 1 – CO2/CO20. [1] That calculation is a prediction of what temperature should be at a given CO2 concentration based on a simple linear regression.
Correct. What’s your point?
Which I don’t dispute. I’ve covered this at length already.
I don’t think your charts are backward. Or surprising. I’ve got no issue with them at all. Anyone who’s opened a warm can of beer vs. a cold one knows that one fizzes a bunch more than the other.
Emphasis added for emphasis. We both already know that scientists on both sides of the debate don’t agree. It’s logically impossible to provide you with an answer because no two people will ever agree on everything, much less tens of thousands of them.
So do I. Because I’m inquisitive AND like doing my own homework I’ve gone out and gotten my own answers. Here’s a good place to start, NASA GISS: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ There are links to several papers on that page which are open access.
There are gobs of papers with direct observation from satellites. Here’s an excerpt from one of the seminal ones: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/321/Harries_Spectrum_2001.pdf
——————————
[1] I screwed up and left out the “1 – ” in the image I posted.
Brandon Gates,
After reading your attempt to explain the difference between the chart you made up and the numerous WFT charts and other charts, from numerous sources, that I’ve posted [and I have many more showing the same thing], I can only conclude that yours is erroneous. Either your chart is wrong, or everyone else’s charts are wrong. Sorry, but common sense indicates that you’ve made some basic mistakes. I’m sure it was not deliberate.
==========
David Socrates says:
So, Janice, the question you need to answer, is…
LOL!! Pretty amusing, funny boy! You have yet to answer a single question I’ve asked, or respond to a single one of the dozens of links I’ve posted. You never answer other commenters’ questions, either. It is the same with your sidekick warrenlb. You two are like a TV set aimed at everyone, emitting your fake science without listening to anyone else.
You replied to David Hoffer:
I suggest you ask Mr Dbstealey why CO2 has not followed T in the past 15/16/17/18 years.
It appears that just about everything you believe is flat wrong. You are certainly wrong here, when you assert that CO2 has not followed temperature for the past 15 – 18 years. This chart flatly debunks that notion. It shows with crystal clarity that ∆T causes ∆CO2. Real world observations trump assertions and beliefs, and Planet Earth trumps all the corrupted ‘authorities’ you people like to cite.
Next, I know you won’t answer this question because you hide out from answerimng every question. But just to put it on the record:
Where do you get your misinformation?
I direct the same question at warrenlb, who believes that adding more CO2 to current levels will cause more global warming. The rest of us know that it is just the opposite; as CO2 rises, each additional ppm causes a smaller warming effect. At this point, CO2 could rise by 25% and we would still not be able to measure any resulting global warming. So as usual I corrected warrenlb’s misunderstanding, and as usual, he completely ignored it.
When David and Warren operate based on such bogus misinformation, it is understandable when they become confused. Which is the reason for my question: I do wonder who is shoveling that pseudo-science nonsense into their brains. CAGW has colonized their minds, and they can no longer think straight. They have to be getting their misinformation from somewhere.
I like the back and forth of science debate, but at this point I should devise a handicap system — just to make it fair.
Bart,
Cherrypicked ones too! It took some doing to find the ones I wanted.
Three times more than this one: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/clip_image0021.png Actually, six times more if you count the fact that I’ve included CO2.
How many total trends are possible in a time series over some fixed interval?
Your WFT plot shows annual resolution, same as my plot does. Both our charts cover 60 years of data, but mine is split into 3 non-contiguous series going back to 1880 whereas you’re only going back to 1958. The major difference is you’re plotting d/dt CO2 whereas I did something else. Which brings me to your response to David Socrates:
Ok. CO2o = 283.7 ppmv, T – To = 0.05, dt = 400,100 years.
While you’re puzzling over how to figure out k, I’ve zoomed in on some fine detail in your WFT plot: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2010/mean:24/derivative/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:2010/scale:0.22/offset:0.10 Looks to me like dCO2/dt leads temperature, which my original plot implies if you look at it … and somewhat contrary to what dbstealey has been telling us. Here’s the thing, both of them are correct about one portion of their respective arguments — they need not disagree yet they do. Let’s see if you can figure out why.
dbstealey,
I’ve explained before that I accept both the data you’ve presented and the relationship they show. Please explain why one of us must be wrong.
Ok, how about telling me what the mistakes are? Here are the links to the raw data I used:
HADCRUT4 — http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat
CO2 — http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ico2_annual.dat
Brandon Gates @ December 7, 2014 at 10:15 pm
Given that you evidently do not even understand what a derivative is, there is really no point in discussing things further.
Brandon Gates,
Your ‘explanation’ is über-lame. Your homemade chart is contradicted by a slew of charts I’ve posted, from lots of different sources. Not one of them agrees with you, not even the ones from alarmist organizations. I have many, many more charts, also from different sources, that all agree with the ones I’ve posted: ∆CO2 follows ∆T on all time scales, out to close to a million years.
I would try to explain more, but as Socrates says, I cannot explain anything to your side. None of us can. But then, you are only a few of Mann’s lemmings, and you’ve staked out your position evgen though the planet is debunking your belief systems. You cannot change your minds, because then you would be acting like skeptics. Sorry about that.
Stealey: “Some day I may take the time to educate you on the Appeal to Authority fallacy.”
A popular skeptic’s meme, claiming that if nearly all Scientists find evidence supports a hypothesis, that’s a contrary indicator as to how well established that hypothesis is.
Have you yet found that spike in T that caused industrial age CO2 rise?
He can’t show any spike in T that cause the 40% rise in CO2.
..
Why?
…
Because none exists.
…
Furthermore, if he actually acknowledged that the “spike” in CO2 was caused by humans, it would detract from his religious belief in “ABC” (Anything But Carbon”
Warrenlb “A popular skeptic’s meme, claiming that if nearly all Scientists find evidence supports a hypothesis, that’s a contrary indicator as to how well established that hypothesis is.”
A popular warmist’s meme: claiming skeptics said things they never actually said.
Your posts begs the question: Why didn’t you defend the quotes listed instead of attacking skeptics?
David Socrates “if he actually acknowledged that the “spike” in CO2 was caused by humans…”
This is likewise an attempt at misdirection of the discussion. Did you not realize that the discussion is over whether or not rising CO2 will cause harmful GW/climate change?
SR
No Steve, Mr. Dbstealey cannot provide evidence that there was a rise in T that has cause the 40% rise in CO2 (from 280 ppm to 400 ppm) .
..
The evidence is non-esistant.
…
If you have the evidence, please post it, and give Mr. Dbstealey a hand.
You, just like Dbstealey are deflecting. His claim that CO2 follows T is false. The reason it is false is because there is no rise in T that has “caused” the current level of CO2.
Please try to focus on the argument, and don’t deflect with your “rising CO2 will cause harmful GW/climate change”…….that isn’t the issue. You know full well that science cannot determine what is “harmful” and what is “benign.” …… Science makes no ethical value judgments.
FOR ANY SERIOUS STUDENTS OF SCIENCE TRUTH READING THIS THREAD this lecture by Dr. Murry Salby about CO2 (native and human), contains much helpful information:
Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg Lecture, April, 2013
(in English after Deutsche intro.)
A sample of my notes on lecture to indicate some of the key points:
{Note: Salby discusses ice proxies at length and also Carbon 13 and the conservation equation and many other details I do not list below}
[10:32] Native (natural) emission of CO2 depends strongly on temperature.
[11:35] CO2 evolves like the integral of temperature, i.e., it is proportional to the cumulative net emission of CO2 from all sources and sinks, both human and native.
[14:03] CO2 lags temp. by a quarter cycle (i.e., in quadrature, using cosine and sine, lags by 90 degrees).
[36:34] Native Sources of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr {native = 2 orders of magnitude greater than human}.
[37:01] re: net CO2 — Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources.
(*Approximately means that even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2)
[39:40] High CO2 values (per SCIAMACHY satellites), i.e., big CO2 sources – Note: they are not in industrialized nor highly populated regions (they are in Amazon basin, tropical Africa, and SE Asia).
*********************************************
This lecture is challenging for a non-scientist such as I, but I was able to understand it quite readily. Watch it more than once as I did and you will easily grasp Dr. Salby’s excellent tutoring.
Truth and ONLY truth will set us free from the economy and liberty-choking regulations of Envirostalinism.
So, Janice, the question you need to answer, is…
…
Has the human contribution to the CO2 cycle moved the equilibrium point from 400 ppm CO2 in the past 100 years?
Correction… From 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the past 100 years.
Hello David Socrates, warrenlb, You have caused me to think. Now a forty% rise in c02 is that an increase in total GHG or a replacement of other GHG. Hmm if its a replacement -the C02 goes up and say, water vapor condenses out then the only added forcing would be the difference between C02 and what ever GHG it replaces. I have not heard of any great increase in barometric readings.So I am curious. Your thoughts?
Hmm also have you ever heard of the Zuiderzee?
BTW Socrates was a skeptic. Also on “appeals to authority” may I suggest “Plutarch’s lives”
michael
davidmhoffer says:
Assuming for a moment that the battle field is as lop sided as you claim (it isn’t) might I inquire as to why your side is still losing?
They are losing more every day, for the simple reason that Planet Earth is making a mockery of their endless alarming predictions. You can see it in the desperation of their arguments, where they constantly fabricate quotes — and then argue with their newly-created strawmen.
=================
Steve Reddish says:
A popular warmist’s meme: claiming skeptics said things they never actually said.
Your posts begs the question: Why didn’t you defend the quotes listed instead of attacking skeptics?
David Socrates: “if he actually acknowledged that the “spike” in CO2 was caused by humans…”
This is likewise an attempt at misdirection of the discussion.
As we see, they do not have credible science-based arguments, so they use misdirection, fabricated quotes, and deflection. D. Socrates is determined to get me to discuss his invention, The Spike. Ain’t gonna happen, because it is his fabrication. It exists in his mind, and I have no control over that thing.
CO2 has been up to sixteen times higher in the past. Even during the Holocene, I can count at least twenty Mann-type temperature “spikes”. That makes the current climate Ho-Hum. There is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening. And that fact destroys the alarmists’ case.
=================
warrenlb says:
DBStealey claimed Industrial Age CO2 rise was caused by T… And when repeatedly asked to show the spike in T that caused the CO2 rise hasn’t yet posted the evidence… Both of these arguments were made by DB.
UM-m-mm… No. Wrong again. This is why I keep asking you to cut and paste my words. But you never do, just like you never respond to my links. If you did, you couldn’t misrepresent what I wrote. Bad alarmist, bad. Deliberately mis-quoting is no different than fibbing.
I said that part of the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2 was caused by human emissions. I also said, “So what?”
I posted numerous links with empirical evidence proving beyond any doubt that changes in temperature are followed by changes in CO2 levels. But if you admitted that fact, your argument would be severely weakened. So you try to fabricate quotes. Bad boy. That’s not OK.
Next, how many times do I have to explain to you that the “spike” is a creation of you and Mr Socrates? Thyis has to be at least the 5th or 6th time. What you’re doing is trying to corner me into discussing your failed conjecture. I refuse, because that would give your conjecture oxygen.
what I have always said is limited to the above: ∆T causes ∆CO2. But you cannot bear to discuss that, because it detracts mightily from the narrative you want to promote: your alarmist claim that human CO2 emissions are a bad thing. But the biosphere would strongly dispute your belief.
After this, warrenlb, I would appreciate it if you would comment on my verbatim comments. So cut and paste what you want to discuss. I realize that will severely crimp your style. But think of the advantage: you would come across as being much more honest.
“CO2 has been up to sixteen times higher in the past”
…
Yup…and guess what….
…
…
In each case it was a lot warmer when CO2 was higher.
Hello David On those past CO2 levels with higher temperatures could you list sources web. sites? pretty please. I seem to remember some of them during ice ages. Thank you
michael
My understanding is that Ferdinand Engelbeen would not agree with Dr. Murry Salby, at least as far as the last 100 years are concerned. Ferdinand Engelbeen feels that virtually all of the increase from the 280 ppm in 1750 to 400 ppm now is due to human combustion. A very small part, perhaps 6 ppm if my memory is correct, is due to ocean warming over the last 100 years.
However as for the effect this has, it is obviously way less than catastrophic.
Werner, it is so much less than ‘catastrophic’ that it cannot even be measured.
==================
D. Socrates says:
In each case it was a lot warmer when CO2 was higher.
Flat wrong. I wonder where he gets his misinformation?
There is no correlation between T and CO2 levels on long geological time scales. That is why I am careful to say that CO2 follows T on all time scales out to hundreds of millennia. When you go back in time much beyond that, all correlation between the two breaks down. There are reasons for that, but since D. Socrates cannot be educated by me, I won’t bother trying to explain to him why that is.
For other readers, at times during major stadials [great Ice Ages], CO2 has been very high. Conversely, during very warm times, CO2 has been low. And vice versa. There is simply no consistent correlation when you go far back in earth’s history. If high CO2 levels caused Ice Ages to stop, we would hear that incessantly from other alarmists, 24/7/365. But we don’t. Instead, they steer clear of that issue because it doesn’t support their ‘carbon’ scare narrrative. In fact, it deconstructs their narrative.
That statement by D. Socrates is enough by itself to show that he is not nearly up to speed on the subject. I would advise him to go back and read the WUWT archives for a few months and at least learn the basics, but he thinks he already knows it all.
D. Socrates’ problem is, what he ‘knows’ is wrong.
I certainly believe the current spike is essentially anthropogenic. I also accept Arrhenius. That is the consensus. I agree with the concensus, as it happens.
But the key issue, the divide between lukewarmers (like Anthony) and alarmists is not raw CO2 forcing. It is the lack of net feedback. That is the cutting edge of the debate, and there is no consensus on that aspect.
It is the difference between ~1C and ~3C warming. That is the debate.
Evan, consensus doesn’t matter – you shouldn’t even be mentioning the word. Consensus has no meaning in pure science. The truth is the truth – it doesn’t matter if most believe it or disbelieve it. The truth doesn’t know if it is supported by a majority or not.
David Socrates on December 5, 2014 at 7:20 pm
“CO2 has been up to sixteen times higher in the past”
Yup…and guess what…
In each case it was a lot warmer when CO2 was higher.
Are you including the end-Ordovician ice age with CO2> 1000 ppm?
Palaeo temps and CO2 levels are uncorrelated and reveal CAGW to be nonsense.
Warren, …”if nearly all Scientists find evidence supports a hypothesis,”
Warren, please be more specific, what do you mean by all scientists? What hypothesis are you referring to that nearly all scientist support?
David Socrates @ December 6, 2014 at 10:04 am
(Sigh) Another amateur who doesn’t understand calculus. This is the relationship, David. There is no denying it. The match is incredibly good. In the modern era, since at least 1958, CO2 fits a model of the form
dCO2/dt = k*(T – To)
where To is an equilibrium temperature, and k is a sensitivity in ppmv per Kelvin per unit of time. If you give me CO2 at the beginning of the era, and the accumulated temperature to whatever time you like, I can tell you to a high level of fidelity what the level of atmospheric CO2 is, no human inputs required.
This is very common behavior of a system regulated by stabilizing feedback. It shrugs off the human input and maintains itself at a naturally prescribed equilibrium level which is slowly changing with time. Nothing exotic or unusual about it.
Brandon Gates @ December 6, 2014 at 11:09 pm
Your chart is just looking at trends. This has almost no informational value. What are the odds that two trends will be in the same direction? 50/50. A coin toss.
What you need to look at is the fine detail, and match it like here. Only then do you know you have a real match, the odds of which occurring by happenstance are vanishingly small.
David Socrates @ December 6, 2014 at 10:04 am
BTW, it is interesting that you blithely dismiss such a staggeringly good correlation simply because it doesn’t appear to be the relationship you expected. Not what you expect, don’t have to think about it anymore, stick your head in the sand.
In science, we look at the data before making our conclusions. The data show the true relationship. It is then the job of the scientist to determine why the relationship exists. A competent scientist tries to fit the theory to the data, not the data to the theory. To see a competent scientist following the scientific method, click on one of the links to Dr. Murry Salby’s lecture which Janice Moore has thoughtfully provided on this page.
warrenlb says:
Have you yet found that spike in T…
There is no spike. In fact, the very minor 0.8º fluctuation in temperature over the past century and a half is almost unprecedented. Normally, global T fluctuates much more than that.
All the wild-eyed arm waving over a tiny fraction of a degree wiggle brings to mind the parable of Chicken Little: by magnifying that very minuscule change by using charts with tenths and hundreths of a degree x-axes, they scare themselves.
But the sky isn’t falling. It was only a tiny acorn.
Actually, it has nothing to do with “finding evidence” since none has been found. It is merely proclaiming you are an expert, and therefore you word must carry extra weight.
Learn what you are talking about before making a bigger fool of yourself.
dbstealey
You write
Sorry, but I write to disagree.
Brandon Gates does not “pretend to be a scientifc skeptic”. On the contrary, Brandon Gates is an out-and-out warmunist who is currently proclaiming a ridiculous and contrived argument based on error, falsehood and distortion in attempt to deny that global warming has stopped. That discussion on WUWT begins here.
The lunacy of Gates’ so-called “analysis” is redolent of Appell’s imaginary sock puppets.
Richard
Someone’s got their panties in a twist.
Brandon Gates
If so then I suggest you adjust your underwear before it harms your private parts. Such damage is not unprecedented and – unlike man-made global climate change – is much to be feared
Richard
Richard Richard, if trading barbs is really what you want to do, at least do me the favor of coming up with your own instead of echoing mine back at me. This isn’t very much fun otherwise. Or we could always go back to discussing how I “made up” ∆F = α ln(C/C0) from whole cloth so I can watch you turn your guts inside out trying to convince yourself that I’m stark raving mad.
Brandon Gates
I have no interest in “trading barbs” with you because you lack the wit to be entertaining.
And I again provide this link to the start of the argument where you did indeed make up from whole cloth the raving madness that ∆F = α ln(C/C0) is a definition of “warming”. That madness is so outstandingly ridiculous that I commend it to be retained for use as your eventual epitaph.
My only question is,
Do you exist or are you another of the imagined raving lunatics dreamed up and posted by David Appell?
Richard
Dear Richard,
Glad you are well enough to post here.
Praying for you.
Your Ally for Truth in Science,
Janice
Dear Janice
Sincere thanks for your greeting. I hope and trust all is well with you and all those you love.
I am ‘testing the water’ with comments and will return to lurking if commenting seems to be a mistake. Your prayers mingle with those of others and I am genuinely grateful for them.
Richard
You are so very welcome.
Life is hard, but God is always good and often very kind.
In case we don’t run into each other again for some time in this busy public square,
Merry Christmas, and
may 2015 be amazingly full of joy for you!
Janice
P.S. Congratulations on your son finding “her.” #(:)) Enjoy the wedding! Oh, yes you’ll be there, Richard, do not even think otherwise.
David A,
I take that as a compliment, actually. This thread turned into a free-fire zone and I am human.
Of course not. It’s a blood sport.
That’s kind of a loaded question, isn’t it? Look, it’s not lost on me that the planet is a fiendishly complex and inherently unpredictable system. So yes, I’m dubious to the point of incredulous about a lot of predictions, particularly the ones dealing with weather extremes. We humans think anecdotally, and consensus scientists and advocates are no exception. I cringe every time a headline reads “X storm caused by Global Warming” because one data point does not a trend make. Xn+1 large storms per year over a period of 30 years is a more weighty statistic. Thing is it could be Xn+2, or Xn-1. We. Don’t. Know. And won’t for sure until we get there. That’s the inconvenient truth.
The one thing I’m most confident about all of this is that increasing atmospheric CO2 reduces the rate at which the planet dissipates solar energy. How and where that will manifiest itself as additional heat, and what local effects that will have is highly uncertain and warrants healthy skepticism. I expect opinions about that to be varied and oft contradictory even in, especially in, the community of researchers actually studying it. That’s healthy science and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Unfortunately I, we, have to put up with panicky folk who say things which come across as hyperbolic alarmism just the same as we (perhaps only me in this convo) have to put up with “aw shucks, this is all a farce, nothing to worry about” statements that sound like categorical denial.
I don’t do all or nothing, yes/no, black/white thinking. I wish rhetoric that climatologists are always right or always wrong about “everything” fell on my deaf ears, but it doesn’t. It rather hacks me off when the debate is reduced to soundbites expressing such extreme positions.
richardscourtney,
Yet you’re still slinging them.
So you keep saying, yet refuse to publicly recognize that I didn’t just make it all up. Now you know that sometimes at least I do know what the heck I’m on about and will do some research before spouting off with easily refutable statements of fact.
lol. I have two responses to that between which I cannot choose so you get both:
1) I’ve done my pop-philosophy homework on solipsism. Logically, I have no proof that I’m not a figment of Appell’s imagination.
2) You’re really clutching at straws now.
Ta.
Brandon Gates
I know it is difficult for an Appell sock puppet, but please try to be consistent.
First you complain that I refuse to “throw barbs” but instead turn your barbs against you.
Now you imagine that I am throwing barbs at you.
Allow me to help by explaining your problem.
In your arrogance you seem to think that I would bother to “throw barbs” at you. That thought is an error: you are far too inconsequential for me to waste time on thinking-up such things.
I refuse to be side-tracked into discussing your lunatic redefinition of “warming”. Not only is there no need because it is a matter of record, but your argument is so daft that everybody can get a good laugh by reading it and I would not want to spoil their fun. I again link to the start of the discussion where you provided that nonsense; it is here.
Richard
dbstealey,
I think that’s more contingent on how long it takes you to learn how to differentiate between fallacious appeals to authority and trusting domain expertise. But hey, if you think it’s prudent to ask your auto mechanic how to fly a 747, by all means knock yourself out.
Brandon this comment is, or should be, well beneath you. I can easily name as many, if not more qualified scientist who are skeptical of CAGW, as you can name who support CAGW. I doubt you can name 40 that support CAGW. Science is not a popularity contest however. Do you believe all the absurd predictions, which failed to happen, because some political leaders of Post Normal institutions support them?
““Mike [Mann], can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Trenberth] re AR4?”
Editor’s insertion of “Trenberth” is clearly wrong here. Probably should be “Briffa”.
This is a great collection…thank you. I wish it could be a pdf.
Copy and paste to MS Word. Save As. Adobe pdf.
(check copyright issues, of course).
(Hover mouse cursor over the “save as”, don’t click on it. The menu choices will pop up).
Thanks markx.
Looks like this would make a nice addition to the “Climate Fail Files” reference pages.
We need something positive.
From 1938, many of you will remember it but maybe not the majority posting here.
From the FATHER of the influence of man on both “climates” and “weather” we have some marvelous stuff to quote :
The Introduction:
“Few of those familiar with the natural heat exchanges of the atmosphere, which go into the making of our climates and weather, would be prepared to admit that the activities of man could have any influence upon phenomena of so vast a scale.
In the following paper I hope to show that such influence is not only possible, but is actually occurring at the present time”
He then proceeded to demonstrate that man indeed does this and concluded:
The Conclusion:
“In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure [Brown and Escombe 1905]. In any case, the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.
As regards the reserves of fuel these would be sufficient to give at least ten times as much carbon dioxide as there is in the air at present”
As a Canadian, you have to love this!
I cracked at: “…We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate…” and totally lost it at the plastic ending.
Thank you for this compilation.
@Steve Reddish.
Did you not realize that DBStealey claimed Industrial Age CO2 rise was caused by T? And when repeatedly asked to show the spike in T that caused the CO2 rise hasn’t yet posted the evidence?
Or that DB also cited the meme I referred to?
Both of these arguments were made by DB.
Warren, if you want to really get Mr Dbstealey spinning, ask him why ….
If CO2 follows T ( at any time scale ) ……why has CO2 risen in the past 15/16/17/18 years, and global T (temps) remained constant?
…
He has said global warming has stoppped, which means global T is ***NOT** rising.
..
So if CO2 follows T, why has CO2 risen in the past 15-18 years, but T has not?
Mr. None-too-well informed:
CO2 evolves from the ocean and SST increased. SST depends on insolation, not CO3. So it is not AGW.
Show me the SST increase that cause the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past 100-150 years.
..
Thank you in advance.
Because CO2 lags temperature, so CO2 will FALL a quarter cycle after a general rise in temperature.
Remember, the key CO2 quantity is NET CO2 (from all sources and sinks of which native are greater by a factor of 2 than human).
It sounds like you may be making the mistake of focusing solely on HUMAN CO2. Human CO2 could increase by many gigatons and still be overwhelmed by a positive net native CO2 sink imbalance. That is, net CO2 may have already begun to fall, lagging temperature by a quarter cycle.
Note, also, that OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND HAS BEEN DECREASING in the northern hemisphere for thousands of years.
Note further:
The term “hiatus” in global warming is terribly misleading. Skeptics should stop using it. It does more to confuse than to enlighten. The more accurate statement is: Land surface temperatures of the earth have been falling overall for thousands of years and for the past 18 years or so have, as they have many times before, leveled off temporarily. There is no data that justifies an assertion with any significant level of confidence that this overall cooling trend is about to end or reverse itself.
“Note, also, that OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND HAS BEEN DECREASING in the northern hemisphere for thousands of years. :
….
Except for the past 100 years.
So, Mr. Socrates, please tell us what your analysis is of Dr. Salby’s lecture. What did you learn?
So if CO2 follows T, why has CO2 risen in the past 15-18 years, but T has not?
So…. you are saying that CO2 has risen in the past 15-18 years but with no affect on T?
Good to know.
Mr davidmhoffer
…
It may be “good to know” but I suggest you ask Mr Dbstealey why CO2 has not followed T in the past 15/16/17/18 years.
Perhaps you just need to learn more. Historically (you know, study, learn, know) CO2 has lagged temperature by 800 years.
What was the lag in your question?
Excellent, davidmhoffer!
#(:))
David Socrates December 5, 2014 at 6:48 pm
Mr davidmhoffer
…
It may be “good to know” but I suggest you ask Mr Dbstealey why CO2 has not followed T in the past 15/16/17/18 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well Mr David Socrates, in the geological record, CO2 has in fact followed T, with a lag time varying from decades to centuries. So that lag time exceeds the last 15/16/17/18 years, hence we can’t draw any conclusions based on fluctuations on much shorter time scales, such as the one you refer to above. That said, recent rise in CO2 is clearly anthropogenic, which has nothing to do with the observation that on geologic time scales, CO2 follows T.
Mr davidmhoffer
…
You should also note that in the “geological record” there has never been a biological organism capable of drilling own through 2 miles of rock to extract and burn hydrocarbons.
…
You need to refresh your observations with the fact that current conditions are unlike any “geological” occurrences. Anthropogenic causes of increased CO2 is unprecedented in the geologic record.
…
Since the conditions that are happening today have no precedent in the geological record, your reference to such doesn’t help matters.
. .
David Socrates @ December 5, 2014 at 6:48 pm
“It may be “good to know” but I suggest you ask Mr Dbstealey why CO2 has not followed T in the past 15/16/17/18 years.”
Sure, it has. It’s just not a simple, proportional relationship, but an integral one. It’s as “perfect” a match as one could hope to get with uncertain data.
Contrariwise to this lockstep relationship, affine similarity with emissions is diverging as the halt in temperatures marches on.
You should also note that in the “geological record” there has never been a biological organism capable of drilling own through 2 miles of rock to extract and burn hydrocarbons.
Which has what to do with CO2 following T on geologic time scales?
You need to refresh your observations with the fact that current conditions are unlike any “geological” occurrences. Anthropogenic causes of increased CO2 is unprecedented in the geologic record.
Which has what to do with CO2 following T on geologic time scales?
Since the conditions that are happening today have no precedent in the geological record, your reference to such doesn’t help matters.
OK then, let’s go back to YOUR position, which is that CO2 is rising and T isn’t.
David Socrates what is the highest CO2 level that you know of in the geological record? Fish or cut Bait.
Time to earn your “Warmist Scout” merit badge. Do you know your business, or just throwing mud pies.
michael
Global cooling, Global warming on a, sort of, 60 year cycle.
It is the SUN!
Man has nothing to do with it.
Religious preachers always shout “Man is the cause of any disaster! and must repent and follow them to salvation. Theirs is the one true god that will save all that follow them.
The Sun and Earth could care less about the activities of men. pg
David Socrates
December 5, 2014 at 7:17 pm
Since the conditions that are happening today have no precedent in the geological record, your reference to such doesn’t help matters.
David Socrates, did you miss the part where
davidmhoffer
December 5, 2014 at 7:05 pm
says:
That said, recent rise in CO2 is clearly anthropogenic, which has nothing to do with the observation that on geologic time scales, CO2 follows T.
Janice Moore,
Oh dear. It’s much bigger than a factor of two … let me see … ah yes carbon flux is 210 natural to 6.3 manmade per annum. Units are some unfathomable unit of jiggletonnes.
Surely someone has been measuring this, no?
I must have missed a memo. I thought we were in a recovery from the LIA.
That broke two irony meters.
So basically you trust proxy temperature reconstructions over modern instrumentation. Bizarre, but revealing. Good to know.
You guys! For heaven’s sake.
We know ~100 ppm CO2 outgasses from the oceans as a result of interglacials (and Al Gore Was Wrong). After a 10C+ sizzling. Fine. But a 30% spike in CO2 since 1950 didn’t happen because of a measly 0.7C (“adjusted”) lukewarming.
I don’t think the CO2 is going to cause that much warming or do us much (if any) harm. And, if we are not unlucky, we’ll even wind up with what the IPCC quaintly refers to as “net benefits” after the dust clears.
But to claim the current CO2 bump is natural? Really?
evanmjones,
Yes, really. Good on you for calling them on it. Now if we could just work on the concept of co-causality things would be just dainty.
There is no doubt about it. It is an integral relationship – not responding to temperature, but to the accumulation of temperature above an equilibrium level. The relationship is clear in the data.
As to why this relationship exists, there are various candidates. It is not the temperature itself that is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but a process which is affinely dependent on temperature, temperature modulated, if you please. Human inputs are not temperature modulated, so they cannot be the culprit.
“… FALL after a general decrease in temperature.”
In case you miss reading above where an uninformed commenter posed a Q to DBStealey:
Please see also my post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/05/friday-funny-over-a-centurys-worth-of-failed-eco-climate-quotes-and-disinformation/#comment-1807250
Yep. Salby is a serious scientist, and the author of one of the most widely acclaimed textbooks in climate science – I highly recommend his latest. He is not out to take a wrecking ball to the edifice he helped build, but he is unwilling to “go along to get along” when he sees the science being adulterated. The book is rigorous, highly advanced reading towards the latter part, and unafraid to identify both the strengths and weaknesses in the various theories.
PS: Good to see you here, Janice.
Oh, Bart! #(:))
And am I VERY GLAD to see you! After I left this thread to eat dinner, I prayed God would send someone (assuming D.B. was busy) or ones to help davidmhoffer fight the trolls/provide truth to prevent the trolls from misleading those who genuinely want to learn AND YOU WERE ON MY MIND! Yea!
Nice posts above (and by several others, including D.B. (wow! what a bibliography)).
Hope all is well with you — YOU rock!
Take care O Poster of Heroic Proportions,
Janice
Hi Janice sigh “the attack of the tolls.” I don’t think dbstealey really needed any help with this lot. They’re very unsophisticated. Fixed on one point. Bad strategy They have to know that the knowledge level here is very high. I really think they should have signed up for the debating society as undergrads. That is if they even attended a institute of higher learning.
michael
Hi, Mike,
Yeah, indeed. Nor did davidmhoffer need help, but, I thought it would be nice for him (since at the time he was the only really solid knowledge guy on the thread) to have a buddy.
They struck me as desperate windmill and or solar panel promoters madly flinging sawdust at the dike of l1es that is crumbling before their beady little eyes.
I’m so glad so MANY heavy hitters showed up, though, for there are the seriously searching silent readers who may otherwise be fooled by those fuddlers.
I don’t think we’ve met before — do I “know” you? Did you used to post as Mike MacGuire? I remember that guy (a meteorologist). Anyway, “Hi” and thanks for chatting a little bit!
Your WUWT Ally for Truth,
Janice
Half of all climate scientists and ecologists are idiots.
On second thoughts, I withdraw that statement; half of all scientists and ecologists are NOT idiots.
Robert Bradley Jr reviews: Doubling Down On Climate Alarmism
Al Gore…. The Gift….. 🙂
“Super Cereal” — South Park (youtube vid)
“… The End.” loloollloloolol
D. Socrates asserts:
Since the conditions that are happening today have no precedent in the geological record, your reference to such doesn’t help matters.
I really wonder if this guy is putting us on? I can’t believe he’s really that ignorant.
On the off chance that he’s serious, I refer Mr Socrates-Grouse to the climate Null Hypothesis: there is nothing happening now that has not happened repeatedly in the past, and to a greater degree, and before human emissions began.
The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, therefore everything currently observed is normal. In fact, the extremely *minor* temperature fluctuation of only 0.7ºC, over a century and a half, is practically unprecedented. We are very fortunate to be living in a truly “Goldilocks” climate. Because normally, global T changes much more than that, and on much shorter time scales. And CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
Really, Socrates has to be fooling with us. No one can be that ignorant. It must be deliberate trolling.
Hi dbstealey, yeah trolls, poor ones. Seems you were their target. They ignored most others. What were they supposed to achieve? It took them time and effort they didn’t have a hope in h*** of getting anyone to buy off on their spiel. Bragging rights?
Anyway I went to sleep on the open thread. So Latin. Si vis pacem para bellum, your turn.
michael
PAX PROPTER VIM!
#(:))
EXCELLENT TEACHING, D.B.!
Your grateful student (many and many a time you have taught ME over the past 18 months or so),
Janice
Hi, ding! got me will have to look it up. I am new. A military history dropout. 5-1/2 years. I came out of a Technical school for high school.half the time in the trade the other half in classroom. After several years in the trade I went to college. Then back to Machine tooling. Also as a boy I became an amateur astronomer .I was brushing up on the sun a year and half ago when one thing after another led here. My wife finally let post a couple weeks ago. I think all of you can guess why.
PAX PROPTER VIM Peace through power. (smile)
michael
Welcome, Michael.
Formal education is NOT the controlling factor in what makes a scholar — you are obviously bright and with your thoughtful approach to analysis along with your technical aptitude, I’d say that makes you a de facto scientist. And you are always learning (unlike the fools above who only “delight in airing their own opinions” Proverbs something:something).
Glad you are here.
(personally, I don’t think “Morlock” fits… that would fit any of the cotton-headed trolls above)
How about Mike the Engineer? or anything with a more positive connotation than Morlock?
Your wife would agree with me! #(:)) (but, re: “let me…” don’t let her boss you around…. life’s too short to spend it on the end of someone else’s chain — “…. just walk beside me and be my friend.” Remember? :))
Pleased to have made your acquaintance,
Janice
” there is nothing happening now that has not happened repeatedly in the past, ”
Gee, so you think the dinosaurs had oil drilling rigs millions of years ago that extracted deposits of oil?
Wow, dinosaurs, with or without oil rigs, are not climate. We are discussing climate, in particular the astounding list of FAILED predictions by alarmist What do you think of them?
Was really interesting read. It makes you realise how incredibly determined vested interests have been in perpetuating the global warming scam. CO2 is like the criminal who has been sentenced for life for a crime he didn’t commit. The warmists are like the beaurocracts who engage in the cover up and using all the loopholes to avoid scrutiny. The academics and media and politicians are all complicit cause there jobs depend on the retrial never happening. It is incredible that the East Anglia emails did not stop the global warming cult in its tracks. It’s incredible that people still listen to Al Gore and Tim Flannery who make statements that continuously are wrong . Australia have 5 desal plants that are rusting .They were built because our dams would dry up and we’d run out of water. Within two years are dams were full and we had serious floods.
I really wish one major conservative government could conduct a proper debate. Then people would realise who are the deniers. Those who think that Climate is a natural thing which follows complex natural cycles or those who think that climate models are climate reality.
Warmists are the true deniers.
Yep. All the world’s institutions of Science are corrupt. We’ve heard that one before from the anti-Science crowd. By their own standard, they’d reject all findings of Science–relativity, DNA, plate tectonics, or Evolution. Dark Ages, anyone?
It is curious how Warren believes all the absurd predictions, which failed to happen, because some political leaders of Post Normal institutions support them.
You’ll probably not hear from Warren or David any more tonight as their moms have most likely sent them both to bed.
lol
I think…. they are out shoveling more coal into their windmill back-up power plants and shoveling snow off their solar panels. Bwah, ha, ha, ah, haaaaaaa!
Janice I have liked reading lots of your chats with many and various in WUWT land and I thought I would put in my 2 penneth worth for all these people who don’t like humanity (or for the PC crowd huperoffspringity)
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
I think it says more about those who see mankind as a disease than they would like to think about.
James Bull
PS Just had a week in Yorkshire and not one windmill working did I see, weather was cold and still. Only saw 3 on the journey back down south.
And another thought from yours truly. If they say they are doing this for the grandchildren but are wanting to remove most of the worlds population whose grandchildren?
James Bull
Personal to James Bull:
Why, Mr. Bull, how very kind and generous of you to say that to me. Thank you!
I enjoy reading YOUR usually pithy (and succinct, something I need to try to better emulate!) comments.
Yes, you make a powerful point. An irrational refusal to believe in God is the root of MANY an intellectual impairment. Atheists cannot, no, make that, WILL not bow the knee to God (pride and need-to-be-in-control, i.e., I GET THE CREDIT FOR ALL MY ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND I AM IN CONTROL, NOT YOU, is the main reason, but they also mistakenly think they’d have to stop having fun if they believe in God; they do not understand about grace… and that morality (for that is all God requires, not slavish devotion to a set of regulations) actually sets them free… . Therefore ANYTHING that appears to require that homage is AUTOMATICALLY (i.e.,. brain switches to OFF) rejected — out of hand. One cannot reason with them, for they simply will not allow it. Sad. Otherwise highly rational, disciplined, intellectuals, they think their minds are also informing them about God when actually, they are blinded by visceral emotion. And Satan laughs. HE believes in God, heh.
Hope you read this before I get snipped for “religion.” 🙂
Your Ally for Truth,
Janice
[Odd that. Usually, it is the males that get snipped for religion. .mod]
Reblogged this on jjreuter.
Thank you for the hearty laughs Tom Scott, I needed that.
All very interesting; however, one primary crime-solving technique is to follow the money. Where does the vast amount of climate funding go? If you think the oil companies spend more on lobbing than the alarmists receives from private foundations and government grants, loan guarantees, and tax credits, you are wrong by the proverbial mile. Note: The Koch Bros are 59th on the donor list.
Suggest you read the Senate EPW Commitee Minority Report “The Billion’s Club” for a different prospective. Want to see how the CAGW Alarmists are robbing the U.S. Treasury? See “Green Corruption Blog.Spot.”
Nice compilation – now set it to music and get it out for a Christmas hit record.
🙂
warrenlb, David Socrates and Brandon Gates – you’ve all contributed to the Friday funnies spot nicely (although it’s Saturday here down under). I had to chuckle at many of your statements. Willful ignorance, ad homs, baseless assertions, strawmen arguments and so on; it just goes ion and on. You should know that MANY scientists contribute to this site, and most visitors to this site actually learn useful things – but not you apparently.
‘MANY scientists contribute to this site’ Is that an example of DBStealeys ‘appeal to authority’?
Or perhaps you’re referring to non-Lord Journalism major Monckton? It’s always easier to avoid Stealeys accusation if instead of citing peer reviewed PhD Scientists one leans on the developer of a cure for Aids (sarc.) .
And it seems the evidence for that spike in T causing industrial era CO2 rise requested from DB is still missing in action. Stealey might check with one of those non-publishing Scientists posting on WUWT……maybe one of them has unearthed such evidence in his unpublished research.
Warrenlb asks:
No, it’s merely a response to your ad hom about skeptics.
No one (apart from you) mentioned a spike in T, but again not many visitors (well normal visitors) disagree that some of the source of some of the additional atmospheric carbon dioxide is anthropogenic.
[Note: Anthony has peer reviwed papers, so Warrenlb’s claim is bunk. See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/publications-and-projects/ -mod]
warrenlb objects to some “non-publishing” scientists being referenced here… but his interminable appeals to a multitude of corrupted authorities are constantly posted.
That is called ‘hypocrisy’.
Psychological projection is one of the major tools of the alarmist cult. They constantly project their own faults onto skeptics.
And as the moderator notes, Anthony is a published, peer reviewed author in the field of climatology. But warrenlb’s CV is… ?
How many papers has warrenlb published? My guess is zero, and that warrenlb is merely a high school graduate. Of course, he is free to prove me wrong any time.
+1
#(:))
Oh, brother! That “+1” WAS FOR xyzzy11!
xyzzy11,
You know what they say: when in Rome …
lol,
Your trolldom is exceptional and refreshing. You get an A for attempting to change the topic from “glaringly idiocratic things climate true believers say” to… anything else. I notice that when good lists of the lies, falsehoods, failed predictions, and plain bs by the climate consensus is on display it frequently inspires the best out of the trolls. It is sort of an aversion reaction I think: Instead of fleeing from the light, try to stomp it out or distract from it.
But your content is like it is with all trolls: absent. So succeeding at troll is to fail at discussion. Sort of sad. But failure is all the consensus has, since that pesky reality just won’t cooperate and give you a climate crisis.
Perhaps you can come and play more in the future? We need to see the full range of intellectual dishonesty and issue dodging more often. It is a good reminder of how empty the climate consensus really is.
hunter,
Thank you. It’s good to know I’m getting through.
You get an A for the coinage “idiocratic”. Unless it’s not an orignal. If it was a typo, then consider my response a spelling lame.
That is SO priceless. Say a bunch of nasty stuff about people and then get bent when the response is less than genteel. I’ll continue in the spirit of pithy aphorisms on this thread: People who live in glass houses …
This thread is running through my irony meter supply faster than a chicken through Ethiopia. I may have to double my next order.
Here we see the fallacious sweeping generalization. Why limit it to one ad hominem when pasting the entire opposition is so easy!
Far be it for you to consider checking whether there’s cotton stuffed in your ears.
Bawww. [hands hunter a kleenex]
That is one of the terrible conundrums on my side of the fence: we’re almost forced to root for disaster to win the argument. My turn for the broad brush: You guys are waiting for the barest hint of it, salivating practically. Look at you, just goading me to do it.
Dangit man, two irony meters in as many consecutive sentences. You’re getting costly. Here are some other howlers:
1) The vast majority of what you know about climate, and how to attack, it is because of original research consensus climatologists published.
2) The prominent contrarian researchers who publish original research (think Curry, Spencer, Christy, Lindzen and a smattering of others … throw Lomborg in there for good measure, I like him) are all lukewarmists. They don’t flat out deny the relationship between rising levels of CO2 and reduction of solar energy dissipation inside the system. Yet, the vast majority of WUWT commenters do, categorically. Why don’t you even listen to your own? Or do you not claim them?
Putting down the broad brush now. It’s fun to use at times, I understand the appeal. Unlike you I recognize that using it results in a vacuous and bad faith argument. How do you like the taste of your own medicine?
Brandon,
Explain for the good folks here at WUWT how latent heat goes both ways. You do remember saying that, don’t you?
Your point?
xyzzy11, Self-awareness is not your strong point I guess. Not unlike hunter just above you.
Brandon, when are going to explain your assertion that latent heat is a two way process? This is the third time I have put this question to you.
mpainter, In an apparently losing effort to keep conversations in context, I responded last night in line with your query: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/04/whither-the-weather/#comment-1807430
This is the second time I’ve posted that link for you. I realize there’s been a lot of traffic between us, but c’mon! 🙂
Brandon,
Just so you will be properly informed, it is a fallacy that latent heat is returned to the surface. Beware of what you swallow on the climateer blogs.
mpainter,
I learned about latent heat before the Internet existed.
Eco parrots, when they’re talking, don’t really know what they’re talking about.
From http://thevane.gawker.com/andrew-cuomo-slams-natl-weather-service-over-his-own-ig-1662362854
we have Gov Cuomo stating that none of us knew a major lake effect snow storm was arriving and blamed the NWS.
For those of us who live along the lakes and pay attention it was a very well reported forecast .
Months earlier our Governor also stated that tornado’s have never been seen in NY prior to this year. Must be Climate Change®!………. or it could just be another case of a yammering eco-parrot, mindlessly repeating stuff.
A politician not accurately reporting on science or appealing to the lowest common denominator of his constituents? That’s something new or newsworthy?
This is admittedly only the final straw that broke the camel’s back, however for me the election of Ehrlich as a fellow represents the final descent of the Royal Society. I believe it is a realistic indicator or the ideology of the RS hierarchy 🙁
The Malthusian/Ehrlich/eco loons/climate nutters are working hard to catch up with failed religious apocalyptics for most failed prophecies.
These are all great quotes and at the same time ‘bad’ quotes, if you see what I mean. How about starting with a ‘good’ quote to put all this nonsense in perspective. There was an excellent paragraph written by Richard Lindzen, which referred to how our children will look back in amazement at how we could have been so deluded, but after a quick google I didn’t find it, maybe someone else can dig it out.
But I did find an excellent summary written by Lindzen (his 2010 testimony):
https://billpeddie.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/testimony-professor-lindzen.pdf
It’s well worth reading.
Chris
Frightening that the serial failure, Ehrlich, is still a professor at Stanford University.
He is much more suited to roaming the streets, draped in a clapboard, proclaiming “The End is Nigh!”
What a raving lunatic
It seems that an enterprising journalist would pluck the low hanging fruit that is Ehrlich’s bizarre career of failure and deception and analyze him and the social context that has permitted him to thrive.
With reference to Paul Ehrlich’s comments about Great Britain we are not starving . Is this an example of a big beautiful theory being undermined by one little ugly fact. Nice collection of quotes though. Ray .
I’m amazed that the illustrious Professor Lewandowsky hasn’t got round to psychoanalysing Ehrlich.
What a goldmine of conspiracy theories, delusions of grandeur, narcissism and plain good old-fashioned lunacy he would find there.
Then again, he could find the same just by looking at a mirror.
I find this sentence from Hansen very interesting.
This first paper blames mostly everything except co2 for most of the warming.
This second paper blames albedo changes / soot for most of the warming.
In 2009 he tells us its albedo changes and co2 mostly.
It would seem that it’s not the climate that’s changing but rather the “settled science”.
Thank you for an excellent article. I tried to not let the somewhat erratic formatting deter me, but others may not be so patient.
I like the tried and true sciency sounding phrase…”Da proof is in da pudding”. We are told that rising CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously. The IPCC science explicitly says so. We are going on 18 years of no warming, some even argue that it has cooled slightly, all the while CO2 content in the atmosphere has risen during this time. And still the band plays on. A real scientist would conclude with this real world data, that CO2 is not the boogeyman its made out to be and maybe the science is wrong and we should look elsewhere or the very least re-examine the hypothesis that started this madness without the advocacy.
No, your analysis is wrong.
Rising atmospheric CO2 ppmv increasingly reduced the outflow of IR thermal radiation to space, and the earth warmed, according to T^4, in order to increase the amount of IR given off, to compensate. The fact that Earth has continued to absorb more and more heat energy is not in question. The question is where does the increased heat energy go, into the atmosphere or into the oceans and land. As it always does –about 90% into the oceans and ~3% into the atmosphere. Slight variations in that distribution of energy flows has a large impact on the temperature change of the atmosphere because air’s specific heat capacity is several times less than the ocean’s.
This reason, and the reason that major long cycle weather effects such as El Nino have multi year effects on atmospheric temperatures, is why the World Meteorological Organization defines 30 years as the minimum period of time over which Climate trends emerge.
Nevertheless, the troposphere still warmed over the last 18 years. it has not stopped as you say. 1998 was an exceptionally hot year due to El Nino, and cherry picking that year as a starting point in the only way you can claim no increase in global temperature– a statistical no-no, In fact, the last three decades were each successively warmer than the prior decade — and 2005 and 2010 are the hottest years on record ,,,and 2014 is on track to beat those records.
A real scientist looks at real data and does not conclude what you say.
Warren, what do you make of the combined temps since 2001?
Not sure what you mean. However, since more heat was absorbed by the Earths system, it must go to ocean’s, land, and/or atmosphere. I stated the effect on global avg temperatures over the period.
Since 2001, the combined surface temp is either flat or actually shows a fall (depends on which organisation you use in the combination). Now, we’re supposed to believe that CO2 is a massive force on our climate. Given that, how have surface temps managed to stay flat (or even fall) under this massive forcing since 2001? If the heat has decided to suddenly start going into the oceans instead, how does that happen, and why wasn’t it doing so prior to 2001? Mate, to me, a heating consultant, it doesn’t make any sense. If someone called me in – as their building wasn’t heating, despite their boiler running, then I would say either the boiler is not up to the job, or the heat is escaping. i have seen the physics explaining how CO2 works within the atmosphere, but something isn’t adding up. Despite this massive forcing, since 2001 we ARE in decline or at least flatlining.
And the increase in ocean heat content:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
OHC is a lagging indicator.
“since 2001 we ARE in decline or at least flatlining.” The data I posted from NOAA shows both atmosphere and oceans warmed over the period. Doesn’t say what you say.
Warren, there were two question marks in there, so two questions for you:
1. How have surface temps managed to fall or stay flat despite massive CO2 forcing?
2. If the heat has gone into the oceans instead, how did it do that, and why wasn’t it doing it prior to 2001?
Thanks.
Warren, that’s being bordeline obtuse. I clearly stated that I was alluding to a combination of data, rather than just one set of figures from one organisation. Do you somehow bizarrely believe that using ONE set is better than using metadata? Please be so kind as to answer the questions using the metadata that you know full well is there (without cherry-picking NOAA’s!).
Complete tosh! The period of 30 years was decided upon in IGY 1958 because that was the amount of data they had at the time. It was and is entirely arbitrary.
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/ipcc-still-delusional-about-carbon-dioxide/
This seems more relevant:
[Please stop promoting a blog that has never had one good thing to say about Anthony or WUWT. ~mod.]
This seems more relevant:
[Enough with the promotion of that blog. Comment there if you like. But she has forfeited her right to your free advertising. ~mod]
I like this analysis of Tisdales’s views on ENSO:
[Of course, you would like that ugly blog. Why are you trying to give her free advertising? ~mod.]
GO, ~MOD!
#(:))
You also like all the garbage posted by alarmist and their predictions. It is curious how Warren believes all the absurd predictions, which failed to happen, because some political leaders of Post Normal institutions support them. (That you call the post normal political leaders a consensus of scientist is sad.)
Dear Sincere David A.,
You give Warren too much credit. Lol, he doesn’t believe anything — he is just DESPERATE to keep his windmill (or solar panel) investment from tanking.
Keep up the excellent comments!
Janice
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Warren: just sell. It is only going to get worse.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaa!
D1e windmills, d1e!
(and they are)
Okay warrenlb still trying earn that warmist scout merit badge perhaps shooting for the “Orden Pour Le Merde”?with poison oak leaves?
michael
warrenlb December 6, 2014 at 9:10 am
And the increase in ocean heat content:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This fascination with ocean heat content baffles me.
Yes, it seems to be going up. We have crappy measurement of it, so the numbers are highly suspect, but the numbers we do have say yes it is going up.
Which has what to do with CO2?
Well, since IR from CO2 gets absorbed in the skin layer of water, causing it to (for the most part) evaporate, rather than warm, very little (if any) of the increase in OHC can be attributed to CO2 directly. Now to be sure, there are other processes like conduction at work, so a warmer atmosphere would in turn warm the oceans by indirect means.
BUT, since the atmosphere hasn’t warmed for 10 to 20 years depending on which temperature set you want to look at, one cannot attribute any increase in OHC in that time period to warming atmosphere or indirect effects of CO2.
Which leaves what?
The bottom line is that the vast majority of energy entering the oceans comes directly from the Sun. Since variance in TSI is too low to account for the change in OHC, we could assume that cloud cover fluctuations are effecting the amount of energy getting into the oceans. AND/OR we could assume that there are mixing processes below and outside of the minuscule coverage of the ARGO buoys that account for the change in OHC.
So even if we accept that OHC is increasing, I see no evidence to substantiate CO2 as a direct or indirect cause of the increase.
This is WUWT, I’m sure I got something wrong in the above, let the edumacating begin….
Yes, this is what I’m trying to extract from Warren. I want him to explain it – as he sees it.
Yes, let’s get an explanation from Warren!
But my experience is that warmists would prefer to wave their hands and ask wild eyed questions like “what happens to us if the heat stops going into the ocean? The ocean has 1200 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, so the change in termps in the atmosphere would be stupendanormous.
This claim baffles me even more, for two reasons:
1. If the natural processes are driving any additional heat into the oceans, what change would result in that stopping? Do they suppose that one day the wind and rain and ocean currents and evaporative processes all wake up one day and just suddenly stopped doing what he physics has been driving them to do? Really? Can Warren name one physical process that would just suddenly stop? You might as well worry that the earth’s orbital direction will suddenly reverse!
2. EVEN IF some physical process suddenly stopped working and all that energy went into the atmosphere instead, so what? You STILL don’t get a massive increase in temps because P=5.67*T^4, so radiance to space increases with the 4th power of T, PLUS, any energy imbalance that results making the atmosphere even slightly warmer than the oceans has no other choice to CREATE energy input back into the oceans and such it out of the atmosphere. In other words, even if you postulate a complete stop in this process we aren’t sure even exists in the first place, the temp of the atmosphere can only vary by a small amount below or above the ocean temps, and with the heat capacity of the ocean being 1200 times that of the atmosphere, even small changes in atmosphere temps can’t go anywhere because they are, in effect, tethered to the ocean.
The atmosphere is like a small child being dragged kicking and screaming through a busy shopping mall by a large adult. The child draws lots of attention, but there’s no doubt that the child’s over all direction of movement has nothing to do with the screaming and thrashing, they’re going with the adult.
Yes, let’s get an explanation from Warren!
Good luck with that!
I predict no explanation will be forthcoming. As usual.
Ehrlich switched horses from galloping into an Ice Age to galloping into Thermogeddon. And I see other biologists featured prominently in the idiotic prophesies. It seems biology has been badly broken for some time. A complete shutdown, retooling and new dedication to the subject of biology is needed before biology courses should be offered again. The book burning can start with the texts of the “take a rapist to lunch” social sciences (murderers, bank robbers, indolents and gangsters are the victims of well adjusted productive people) to get the fire hot. After all, it was the corrupted social scientists that started all this and it is spreading to the hard sciences.
Fascination with Ocean heat content BAFFLES you? As increasing GHGs increasingly restrict the outgoing flow of IR to space, it shouldn’t be baffling that the IR thermal radiation redirected back towards the lower troposphere and earths surface goes to oceans (~90%), atmosphere (~3%) and land and rivers (the remainder), But If you don’t accept the Greenhouse Effect, I doubt you would find it interesting.
I do accept the GHE, I’ve explained it in detail to doubters and believers alike over the years. I can go right down to the radiative physics if you want, and explain exactly how it works. Now read my last two comments upthread and respond to the science issues I have raised in them instead of accusing me of not believing in something I have spent countless hours on this blog helping other people understand not only that it exists, but how we know it exists.
Smear me or discuss the science issues I raised. Pick one.
Well he hasn’t responded to my two very simple questions, so I doubt he’ll reply, or he’ll skirt around it like he does above by rejecting metadata, and choosing one set instead.
Warren, either discuss sensibly or give up, mate. You are not looking like you have the talent to discuss the issues.
Hi Ghost,
I note that ‘wlb’ has never responded to any of the many question I’ve asked, nor has he ever commented on the numerous links I’ve posted to help him understand. It’s as if he is blind to all contrary evidence — and there is a lot of that. We’re trying to educate him, but it seems to be impossible.
wlb can’t comment on the links I’ve posted because once he starts discussing those things, he will either have to concede that he’s wrong, or the scales will fall from his eyes and he will see the light: AGW is so trivial at current CO2 concentrations that it does not even matter. It is too small to even measure. CO2 could double from current levels and the net effect would be beneficial. There is no downside to adding more of that harmless trace gas to the environment.
wlb cannot admit that. So his comments are misdirection, deflection, and evasion.
As increasing GHGs increasingly restrict the outgoing flow of IR to space, it shouldn’t be baffling that the IR thermal radiation redirected back towards the lower troposphere and earths surface goes to oceans (~90%),
Again Warren, please explain it to me. Since IR gets nearly 100% absorbed in the first few microns of water, the bulk of the effect is evaporation into the atmosphere. So, IR cannot directly heat the oceans. That being the case, can you explain how it does heat the oceans indirectly?
@The Ghost of Jim Cooley. I answered you politely. The least you could do is stop the snark.
You claim differently than the IPCC and NOAA? Show us the data sets and substantiate your bizarre claims about temperature flatlining. I’m sure if you showed your selected data sets to the IPCC or NOAA they would recant from their conclusions. Not.
Regarding the other question you asked as to when the oceans started absorbing heat? That’s a non-serious question. Or if you think its serious, then you’re a non-serious thinker.
Ah, so you are being obtuse! But more on that in a moment. I have already given you the graph, at 8.42. Unlike many others, I don’t state that warming stopped 18 (or whatever) years ago. However, using a combined set of data, it is clear that warming DID stop in 2001.
Now, obtuse: you know full well that I wasn’t stating that heat ONLY started going into the oceans after 2001, so don’t be puerile. So let me rephrase it (to stop you wriggling out from answering it):
After 2001 (according to what you evidently believe), CO2 chose to halt its uniform warming of the globe, and instead began to put all its effort into the oceans – hence combined records show a flatline or cooling after 2001, yes? Or are you still leading with the idea that CO2 “varies” the way it heats the atmosphere? Which is it now?
Ghost,
One tenth of a degree per century of beneficial warmth…
EVERYBODY PANIC!!
Whenever I hear their predictions, I am always reminded of this scene:
http://youtu.be/a5QBuJla5do
warrenlb
and your proof is? (citation)
@Ghost of Jim Cooley. As a retired Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Engineer, I am somewhat surprised at your questions. Surface measurements do indeed show warming of the climate over the last 3 decades, Each of which averaged higher temperatures than the decade immediately prior. As I posted, 2005 and 2010 were the warmest years on record, and 2014 is on track to beat those records. NOAA data –also found in the IPCC 5th Assessment.
If you accept that an increasing Greenhouse Effect increasingly restricts the flow of thermal radiation from Earth into space, you understand that the extra thermal radiation returning to Earth adds thermal energy to the Earth’s system –which includes oceans, land, and atmosphere. As a heating engineer, you would expect that the distribution of that extra energy going into Earth’s system among land sea and air would vary rom time to time — in the case of the atmosphere with a low specific heat medium –air — these variations in heat flow distributions can produce large variations in atmospheric temperature — one of two reasons why less than 30 years is inadequate time for a climate trend to emerge. The other reason being the effect of long cycle weather phenomena –eg, ENSO — can mask short term climate trends. You would also expect that it is not the case, as you seemed to imply in your post, that suddenly the oceans were not absorbing heat for extended periods, and then started to do so. I don’t claim that.
If however, you don’t accept that an increasing Greenhouse Effect is causing additional thermal energy to be added to Earths system with time, then a different discussion is required than that above.
Ah, so without actually directly answering the questions succinctly, you think that, despite the fact that CO2 is a massive warming force (apparently), there are periods when it is simply overcome by ‘natural’ forces? You cannot claim that there is ANY variation to the way CO2 warms the atmosphere – the physics of CO2 do not show that, and that is why NO model ever predicted it – the only way was up!
It doesn’t wash, Warren. And if you were an honest man you would admit it. It’s difficult, sometimes, to see what we believe not behaving as we thought. But we should admit it to ourselves when our beliefs don’t tally with observation. If I were reporting to that client, I wouldn’t tell them that their boiler varies in output, I’d tell them that there must be other factors at play.
I still want him to tell us how IR heats the oceans.
davidmhoffer,
You’re asking wlb a question. Good luck getting an answer.
To Warrenlb:
I’ve got to run along now, my real life beckons, I won’t be able to check this blog again until the morning. So, I am going to leave you with a thought. You seem to be of the impression that those asking you questions are of the belief that the GHE doesn’t exist. You’ve made an incorrect assumption. Of course the GHE exists. I would challenge you to go back through the questions being asked of you, and answer them again. Only this time, answer them on the assumption that the person asking assumes that the GHE does exist. I think you may learn something from the experience.
warrenlb says:
As increasing GHGs increasingly restrict the outgoing flow of IR to space…
No wonder he’s confused. CO2 does not “increasingly” restrict the outflow of infrared energy. Rather, most of that effect took place within the first 100 ppm.
If wlb had said that CO2 decreases the obstruction of IR to space as the CO2 concentration rises, then he would be correct. In other words: the more CO2, the less effect it has. At current concentrations, there is almost no effect from adding more CO2.
But if he stated it correctly, he would have to admit that his entire premise is deconstructed.
Since you are picking nits, I will point out to you your big mistake.
..
warrenlb said GHGs not CO2, so why don’t you focus on that instead of CO2 ?
D. Socrates,
It’s not a “big mistake”. It’s not a mistake at all: the issue is carbon dioxide.
Haven’t you ever heard of the ‘carbon’ scare?
Okay, David Socrates,
If you mean water, then say water and I will focus for you. But you need to say it.
warrenlb is talking about GHG’s which include much more than just CO2…
…
You know, like water vapor and methane.
The net effect of water, in all its phases,is cooling of the earth- both surface and atmosphere. Water vapor, the predominant GHG, has the most important role in this cooling process.Repeat, the net effect of water vapor is _cooling_, radiative flux notwithstanding.
I will wager that you are now scratching your poor, benumbed noggin.
D. Socrates says:
warrenlb is talking about GHG’s which include much more than just CO2. You know, like water vapor and methane.
Is he? And are you really that naive? Really??
Taxing methane is a non-starter, and if they could tax water vapor, please explain how that would work…
…oh. I forgot. You guys never explain, you just assert.
The whole ‘global warming’ scare is motivated by governments wanting to pass a carbon tax. Is there any doubt about that? If so, let me explain:
A carbon tax would bring in immense revenues for a start, and those revenues would constantly escalate. There’s your motive. It’s a big one.
The problem is that every dollar forcibly extracted from the productive sector via a carbon tax is a dollar wasted. It would seriously lower the standard of living, and it would not do one damn thing about “carbon” — by which they mean CO2, specifically. Read Bastiat’s ‘Broken Window Fallacy’ to understand the economics. China, Russia, India, and a hundred smaller countries would still emit all the CO2 they wanted, and those emissions will rise no matter what taxes are passed.
The U.S. is already curtailing CO2 emissions, without any government taxes or regulations. But not China and the others; they are all increasing their emissions. So the whole premise is highly suspect. Furthermore, CO2 has not been shown anywhere by anyone to cause any global harm. Thus, CO2 is “harmless”. QED
CO2 is also beneficial to the biosphere. The planet is measurably greening as a direct result of the added CO2. So now what are you left with? What is your objection? Or, are you just a mindless media follower who can’t think for himself, but only parrots what he hears? Is that it? That would explain everything.
To summarize: the central issue is CO2, which is very easy to tax. And CO2 is emitted by just about everything and everyone. But methane is not easy at all to tax, and water vapor is impossible to tax.
Now do you understand why CO2 is the target?
Yes warrenlb is posting about GHGs
He posted ” As increasing GHGs increasingly restrict the outgoing flow of IR to space, it shouldn’t be baffling that the IR thermal radiation redirected back towards the lower troposphere and earths surface”
…
Even YOU copy and pasted his comment.
Funny then you ask “Is he?
…
Well, it’s in black and white. He’s talking about GHGs and you are talking about CO2.
…
Then you AGAIN change the subject and start talking about taxes.
..
Please show me where in warren’s post he talks about taxes.
.
David Socrates says:
He’s talking about GHGs and you are talking about CO2.
CO2 is a GHG. It is the only GHG that matters, because without it the alarmist cult would have nothing to complain about.
And without me you would have nothing to complain about. It’s amusing how fixated you are, like a chihuahua nipping at my heels. ☺
“CO2 is a GHG. It is the only GHG that matters”
..
H2O is a GHG. Are you saying that H2O does not matter?
..
PS…you didn’t show us where warrren mentioned your tax starwman.
dbstealey;
In other words: the more CO2, the less effect it has.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
You need to re-word that. The more CO2, the less additional effect additional CO2 has.
davidhoffer,
Correctomundo. Thanks for that.
Sometimes I know exactly what I’m saying, so I presume everyone else does, too.☺
Anyway, I trust the chart makes it all very clear.
I recall Carl Sagan was a believer in the coming ice age back in the late 60s but I’ve not found any quotes. If a Carl quote could be located it would add gravitas.
Personal recollection: I recall him speaking about Nuclear Winter, many times… but don’t actually recall any proclamations about natural events. Then again, a lot of the hippy-generation “science” popularists seem to believe that nothing natural happens on Earth anymore.
Howard G I don’t know about Carl Sagan but I recall Isaac Asimov wrote about it and seemed to to think it was possible at the time. And yes I take Isaac more serious then Carl. Isaac wrote better sifi.
smile
michael
Carl Sagan was a believer in the destruction of nations and the one Planet Earth governance. So the Cannabis Generation is getting its way in Australia.
“Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H. G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly the universe or nothing.” –Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980
Now you can see what the Cannabis Generation’s rhetoric looks like in reality, in Australia. And I do not think there is anything colder than a heart that knows no gratitude, loyalty, natural affection, or limits to its treachery to foreign interests. So yes, he talked about the coming cold!
No we’re not! Cannabis is still illegal despite mountains of evidence that it’s a great pain reliever and anti-inflammatory. It’s legal to consume highly addictive opiates (Tramidol for example that makes me anxious) or Viox that gave my best friend 5 heart attacks in a few weeks, but something shown effective and relatively free of side effects? Naah! Better break the law and buy dubious dope on the street along with the compulsory foil of ice!
In his 1980 book, Cosmos, he was evenly divided about the prospects of coolong and warming:
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://io9.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135&sa=U&ei=9dKDVIzLGNXaoASG4YLADw&ved=0CBQQFjAA&sig2=NbJnTwUFsSKQUT6sNofovA&usg=AFQjCNGnvjwWmVW5Fcryv4VVbdVn4u0TiA
Here’s what Sagan wrote:
Git,
Where have you been? Good to see you back.
@ dbstealey
Lurking and learning to cope with an intensification of my lower back pain. Wondering how it’s possible to be as deluded as the warmunists are. I found myself amused by your attempts to educate the trolls above. Not sure how much time I’m willing to devote to such myself these days. I prefer my garden and the company of the little birds that share its bounty with me.
Yes, it is getting more difficult to work up enthusiasm to deal with their increasingly unhinged grasping at straws. Nature is giving them a good spanking. Let her do her job.
There is an eight letter word in the dictionary that describes most of these proclaimations and proclaimers very well:
clueless.
davidmhoffer December 6, 2014 at 1:43 pm
I still want him to tell us how IR heats the oceans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well I am back. Still no answers to my questions. Hey, why not ask some more? Maybe if I ask enough, he’ll find one he can answer?
Warrenlb,
Do you know what the effective black body temperature of earth is? Of course you do. It is the temperature of earth as seen from space, of course you knew that.
Do you know what the effective black body temperature of earth is? Of course you do, it is 255K.
Now, assuming CO2 doubles, and sensitivity in terms of the direct effects of CO2 is assumed to be 1.1 degrees per doubling, once the system settles out to a new equilibrium state, what would the new effective black body temperature of earth be?
Warrenlb?
No answer? Pretty simple question, a man of your knowledge on the subject ought to be able to rattle off the answer with little effort.
He probably had to trot back to SkS for some new talking points…
How these “climate scientist” can justify “global warming” is beyond a joke when considering the statements they have made. These “climate scientist” statements which they made were totally convinced of their truth but with the passage of time how wrong could they be.
I also would like Warren to explain how 90% of the energy from additional CO2 induced LWIR back radiation goes into heating the oceans, instead of mostly into the latent heat of evaporation, and thus to the atmosphere. (It is irritating when folk get in long arguments about LWIR can, or cannot, heat the oceans. The scientific question is how much.) Warren says 90% of the energy goes there. ( …”IR thermal radiation redirected back towards the lower troposphere and earths surface goes to oceans (~90%), atmosphere (~3%) and land and rivers (the remainder”),
If Warren wants to give a real answer he will tell us the residence time of the LWIR entering the oceans, as said residence time correlates to the potential warming affect.
===========================================================================
I would like to ask a general question. Are the oceans a GHL to SW radiation? (GHL = Green house liquid.)
If they are, what SW insolation WL has the longest residence time in the oceans, and how much does the WL vary with solar cycles?
I would like to ask a general question. Are the oceans a GHL to SW radiation?
No.
david, you say no, but perhaps elaborate. Without expressing details considering exact amounts, GHG lengthens the residence time of LWIR within the atmosphere, while input of course remains constant, thus some warming until equalization.
The oceans increase the residence time of SW radiation entering the oceans, relative to if said insolation simply struck the land and emitted LWIR back into the atmosphere? An assertion with a ? mark. Therefore there is ore total energy in the system, due to how the oceans absorb SW radiation.
I look forward to your clarity on this.
You have a bunch of misunderstandings balled up into a couple of paragraphs. Do oceans absorb across a 100m to 300m span while land absorbs right at surface? Sure. Does that mean things would be different if we replaced oceans with land? Sure. Does that make oceans a “GHL”? No, it makes them an ocean. The GHE operates in the atmosphere because gasses are wavelength selective while liquids and solids are not, and so do not support a compararble process to the GHE. I suggest you start with these:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
I am not certain of what I am misunderstanding. Perhaps you misread my analogy. The label greenhouse gas is of course an analogy in itself, as GHGs do not work on the same principle as physical greenhouses.
I am speaking in a general sense for a reason. “There are only two things that can affect the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, either a change in input, or a change in some aspect of the residence time of energy within the system.” (This is a pretty solid statement accepted by RGB and others)
I am not looking to explain the details of the GHE. (And I am not misunderstanding) At its most basic a GHG increases the residence time of some LWIR energy within the system. (It redirects some escaping LWIR of a certain w/l back towards the earth. Input remains the same, residence time of LWIR increases, = more total energy in system.) This is not controversial. There are other detailed processes, changes in different levels of the atmosphere, etc, but all those processes either increase or decrease the residence time of exiting LWIR.
My question was…Are the oceans a GHL to SW radiation?
The oceans are a three dimensional SW absorbing surface. Just as different GHG absorb different spectrum of LWIR from the surface, the oceans absorb solar insolation (of different W/L) to different depths. In general the deeper the energy penetrates into the oceans (Up to 800′ the disphotic zone) the longer the residence time of the affected energy.
This is logically consistent and breaks no laws. A pot of water when covered with a lid, increases the residence time of the energy entering the pot, although input may remain the same. In the oceans disparate W/L of solar insolation changes over the solar cycle. Even excluding cloud cover, this will affect the amount of energy going into the oceans, not just on a W/M Sq basis, but due to the different residence time of the energies involved, the affect can be far greater then the W/M Sq change. The residence time of energy entering the oceans, is far greater then the residence time increase of energy within the atmosphere due to GHGs. Also, some GHGs like water vapor dramatically, (even in clear skies) reduce insolation into the oceans.
Science doe not describe the residence time of energy entering the oceans in any exact method, or by it relative W/L, or by its change over solar cycles. We do however know that the time can vary from very short, LWIR energy absorbed mostly, if not entirely, in evaporation, to centuries for any energy which gets absorbed into the entire ever turning process of ocean waters.
However, in general it is fair to state that such long term residence times, can increase or decrease the energy within the oceans for as long as said change in insolation occurs, possibly for decades energy can decrease, or increase, due to long term changes in insolation of a W/L which penetrates deeply into the oceans. (Just as a very thick pot and lid, even over a very small flame, may, over time, reach a very high temperature.)
[GHL = ??
L/W = Long wave ,
W/L = Wavelength ? .mod]
However, in general it is fair to state that such long term residence times, can increase or decrease the energy within the oceans for as long as said change in insolation occurs,
You are talking two different things. The GHE results in a different surface temperature with the exact same insolation due to a variation in GHG concentration. You’re trying to vary the insolation instead and get a “greenhouse liquid” out of it. Its the insolation you changed, not the liquid.
You are correct, and the analogy was not meant to be exact, but to point out that the oceans, are a three dimensional surface sensitive to S/W insolation, just as GHGs are sensitive to certain bands of LWIR. The law; “There are only two things that can affect the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, either a change in input, or a change in some aspect of the residence time of energy within the system.” always applies. The system we are interested in is the earth, land, ocean and atmosphere.
Please note that changing the W/M sq insolation is not necessary to affect the amount of energy the oceans absorb. A simple change in the solar spectrum, even if W/M sq. remains the same, can increase or decrease the oceans total energy content. In this sense, just like with GHGs, it is the residence time of the energies involved that matters. Always the law applies,
By observing, we can see that a change in the residence time of energy in the atmosphere, say an increase in W/V, can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which responds far faster then the oceans to such changes. However, although the atmosphere may gain energy, the oceans may, and do lose energy.
The total loss to the combined system may be cooling, yet due to the residence time, or heat capacity of the oceans being far greater, It just may not manifest in the atmosphere for a much longer time.
Annually we see this in the seasons, when, despite an increase of 90 W/M sq, the earth’s atmosphere cools, despite this far greater insolation. Yes, the NH albedo increases (decreasing the residence time of some energy within the atmosphere) but also the vast SH oceans receive much of this insolation, thus this increase in energy is for a time, also lost to the atmosphere. (Did the earth gain or lose energy during this time?) A fair question to which most state that the earth gained energy despite the atmosphere cooling.
This leads one to realize that the earths oceans likely drive the climate, and the energy into and out of the oceans not only greatly moderates the climate, but likely, due to flux in SW energy W/L, and insolation changes (cloud cover percentage flux and location changes due to jet stream flux) is the primary source of climate changes, overwhelming the very small changes in earth’s energy budget due to a slight increase in atmospheric residence time due to additional CO2.
[GHL = ??
L/W = Long wave ,
W/L = Wavelength ? .mod]
To mod, yes and GHL (green house liquid) is used to reference that, just as GHGs increase the residence time of certain W/L upwelling LWIR, the oceans increase or decrease the residence time of disparate W/L SW insolation, depending on the wave length of said insolation.
Only with the oceans the residence time is far greater, and therefore, even if the energy affected is small, over the far greater residence time, the total energy increase or decrease could be large.
Carlin’s answer, in retrospect, seems the most sage (sagest?… sagiest?) Not because he predicts the true evolution of climate, or even attempts to, but because he sees the pointlessness of the endeavor and hedges his predictions for the human race with the smartest algorithm of all: humor.
Bart,
The first derivative is the slope of a line tangent to some curve at a given point. It represents the instantaneous rate of change of y with respect to x. Applied to a timeseries, dy/dt represents acceleration in the change of y with respect to t. Same for dy/dx since t is just a particular kind of x. Amirite? I’m right.
dCO2/dt = k*(T – To) works over short intervals of time because the natural fast response of CO2 to T lends itself to linear approximation. It breaks down over longer periods of time because:
1) ∆CO2 is an equilibrium response, so over longer periods of time, all else being equal, the rate of CO2 change will decay as a non-linear function over time as the system approaches the new equilibrium.
2) All else is not equal. At present the best medium term predictor of equilibrium CO2 concentration is the rate we desequester it above or below the system’s ability to reabsorb it.
dbstealey,
So do I. I repeat: I don’t disagree with them.
Ok, here’s a chart I bet you agree with: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/clip_image0021.png
Hands down a dead flat temperature trend for 18 years and 2 months. No dispute here, that’s what it shows. According to your argument “∆CO2 follows ∆T on all time scales”, CO2 should have also remained dead flat. What does Wood for Trees have to say about ∆CO2 over those 18 years and 2 months?
Brandon,
That chart does not show cause and effect between T and CO2, like this one does. The one I posted shows 18 years, 2 months — plus some. I can also post many more that you probably haven’t seen. I have them from months, to almost a million years back. They all show that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. No exceptions.
Show me a comparable chart, which shows that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T, and I will sit up straight and pay attention. If I can’t find any way to falsify it, I will concede the point to you.
I’ve looked high and low for such a chart, to no avail. Maybe you can find one.
dbstealey,
Then how could CO2 have risen over the past 18 years when temperatures have remained flat?
Brandon,
There are two interrelated things you may not have considered, but I have little doubt you will see what’s going on once it’s explained.
First, there is the 800 ±200 year lag effect. The MWP was warmer than now, so we are seeing the effect. Riding on that is the anomaly, which is not the same thing as a trend. Once you think about it, I’m sure you will see how T can remain flat while CO2 rises.
I would still like to see a chart like one I asked for above, if you can find one. Otherwise, the only reasonable conclusion is that ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is no evidence for the contrary [although as I’ve said repeatedly, I think AGW exists. It is just to tiny to measure].
dbstealey,
Yup.
Between now and the MWP was the LIA …. ?
True.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSYVkyelIyekdnQm8
Top graph: rate of temperature change (deg/decade) and CO2 (ppmv/year) 1-2014 CE.
Bottom graph: rate of temperature change (deg/century) and CO2 (ppmv/year) 1600-2014 CE. [1]
Temperature Data:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/imoberg2005.dat
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3v-gl.dat
CO2 Data:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ico2_annual.dat
———————————————
[1] Change in units from top graph for scaling purposes.
Awesome! Among your very best.
Brandon,
Once again: that chart is an overlay.
It does not show cause and effect.
Use the WoodForTrees database. Produce a chart like this one, but showing that changes in CO2 cause changes in temperature. That should be very easy to do — if there are supporting measurements.
To be convincing you need to work off of the same page. Use the same WFT databases that I used, then make your case.
dbstealey,
Same data as last graph, different presentation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSSm00aTdsQTRWaFU
Top plot is your WFT plot laid over a graph I generated. They match. Bottom plot goes all the way back to 1300. I do a 60 year sampled rate of change (blue and magenta curves) and a 60 year isolate with a 12 year centered moving average (yellow and green curves). The lead lag relationships are clearly visible in both methods and line up with each other.
The isolate function detrends because it works on centered moving averages subtracted from the current period’s value. Which means that not only does it take out the relative difference between two data series with secular trends, it looks into the future to do its calculations.
You’ve got plots going back hundreds of thousands of years, yes? Are those data in the WFT database?
I didn’t think so. Let’s not unilaterally declare by fiat what data are or are not convincing. I’ve given you the links to the raw data. If you don’t wish to accept them, that’s your choice.
“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is” -Dr David Viner
This is a fake quote. Viner did not say “within a few years”.