Guest essay by Ian Aitken
What does the future hold for the climate change debate? Will there ever come a day when we see the headlines across the globe, ‘It’s Official – There Is No Climate Change Crisis’? Hardly – for unless we find some way to leap ahead in the currently highly immature science of climate change and manage finally to pin down the exact direct and indirect (via feedbacks) warming effect of adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere and the exact effects of natural changes in our climate the outcomes will remain uncertain. The eminent scientist Stephen Koonin has stated that, ‘Today’s best estimate of the sensitivity [of the atmosphere to the addition of carbon dioxide]… is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.’ Basically, unless the ‘Uncertainty Monster’ is slain (and there is absolutely no reason to believe that will happen in the foreseeable future) neither the believers nor the skeptics can ‘prove’ their case. In which case we seem to be in a ‘wait and see’ position. But for how long? Even if the current global warming Slowdown persisted for decades it would still be possible that dramatic and dangerous warming was just about to resume. Indeed in 2015 The UK’s Royal Society expressed the view that it would take 50 years of divergence between the observations and the climate models before they would be convinced that the theory of anthropogenic climate change was flawed. We cannot be absolutely sure that there will be no climate change crisis – only that it is becoming increasingly unlikely. So the politically-correct scientific shibboleths of the ‘climate change crisis’ idea may well persist for a great many decades.
Having persuaded the world to spend trillions of dollars on fighting man-made climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) really going to admit that the causes of climate change are actually far more complex than they originally thought and so they may have been fundamentally mistaken about both the attribution and quantification of warming? And what about the UK’s Royal Society and the American National Academy of Sciences, those most renowned of scientific institutions; are they going to admit that they may have put political correctness and scientific funding concerns before scientific objectivity? What about all those climate scientists who have been so careful to tacitly collude with the IPCC and not rock the climate change crisis boat; are they going to admit that their judgments may have been skewed by considerations of the self-interest of retaining their jobs, careers, incomes and pensions? And the many climate research units around the world; are they going to say, ‘Well we must go where the science takes us – if the science says that there actually isn’t a problem then we’ll just have to shut up shop.’ What about all of the senior politicians in the western world who have foisted an avalanche of regulations, taxes and controls on their electorates to ‘fight climate change’; are they going stand up and admit that their scientific illiteracy led them to be completely fooled? Are all those prestigious environmental organizations, such as the WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth going to admit they had only ‘signed up’ to the global warming scare because it happened to suit their agendas, attracted donations and increased their influence? Is the BBC, that globally respected bastion of impartiality and objectivity, going to admit to the people of Britain that it abused its position of trust by simply taking on face value the selective and spun science fed to them and taking an irresponsible and unjustifiably partisan editorial approach to the climate change debate? What about all those newspaper journalists who for years have been repeating NASA and IPCC Press Releases as ‘objective facts’, neither subjecting them to critical analysis nor asking any awkward questions? What about all those celebrities who have lined up to pledge their support for fighting climate change by flying less frequently in their private jets to reduce their ‘carbon footprint’? What about all those school teachers who (willingly or unwillingly) taught their pupils about the climate change crisis as though it was an undisputed fact? No, it just isn’t going to happen – far too many reputations and far too much money is at stake.
There is also the strange culture in science explained by the scientific historian Thomas Kuhn as, ‘Once it has achieved the status of a paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place’. Note that he is not suggesting that this is right; instead he is saying that history shows it to be case. A credible alternative theory today is the ‘cosmic ray flux theory’; but for every dollar in research funding that goes into that theory and for every mention in the media of that theory there must be ten thousand that go into the IPCC theory. It just cannot compete. And anyway it is too late – the IPCC theory grabbed the high ground decades ago and has never surrendered it. Furthermore skeptical scientists are not suggesting that there is any single, simple theory to supplant the IPCC’s anthropogenic climate change theory, the ‘Climate Change Orthodoxy’. Instead they offer a theory that climate change probably derives predominantly from natural ocean-atmosphere oscillations and/or by natural solar variations (irradiation and cosmic ray flux) and/or by natural cloud cover variations and/or the Milankovitch Effect, i.e. it is probably predominantly just natural. On the one hand you have something that is superficially simple, certain and easy for the public and journalists and politicians to understand (‘our carbon dioxide emissions are definitely the cause of dangerous climate change and reducing them will definitely solve the problem’) and on the other hand something that is complex, nuanced, uncertain and requires a considerable knowledge of science to understand (‘various complex and interlinked phenomena in nature, none of which is well understood, are probably the predominant cause of climate change that in some ways will probably be beneficial but in others may not’). It is a very easy to understand, very alarming problem with a very ‘simple’ solution (‘decarbonize globally’) vs. a very hard to understand, very unthreatening problem with no man-made solution (since we are at the mercy of nature). Which is more likely to get the media headlines, sell newspapers and grab the public imagination? And simply admitting that our knowledge of climate change science is too slight to know ‘what causes climate change’ is never likely to supplant the dominant paradigm of the Climate Change Orthodoxy. Perhaps the Climate Change Orthodoxy theory lives on for little better reason than the failure of a simple, certain, compelling alternative theory to supplant it – and if the skeptical scientists are right then no such theory is ever likely to be found. Add to the huge vested interests of the media the huge vested interests of the scientists, the scientific authorities and the army of people who profit hugely from subsidized renewables and the dominant paradigm appears secure for the indefinite future.
Instead we may find the years rolling by with rising man-made greenhouse gas emissions yet modest, nonthreatening, global warming (and perhaps some temporary global cooling). In the fullness of time the inability of the climate change models to predict climate states generally, and atmospheric temperatures specifically, will become increasingly inescapable, the funding for climate change science research will quietly peter out (at first research into physical climate science, then later research into climate change mitigation, then finally research into climate change adaptation), the climate change researchers will quietly move on to other things (perhaps researching natural climate variability – or global cooling), the journalists and politicians will quietly stop talking about the climate change crisis – and the whole issue will quietly fade from the public consciousness. Basically, the man-made climate change crisis idea will probably simply follow a trajectory, not dissimilar to that of many other ‘man-made global crises’ (such as the DDT or BSE ‘crises’), of
1) Scientists misreading the evidence, confusing correlation, cause and effect – and then, long before the science is sufficiently mature to warrant it, leaping to alarmist conclusions
2) Scientists then exaggerating the risks (and suppressing uncertainties and contradictory evidence) in order to attract government funding to investigate the potential scare properly
3) Journalists hyping the potential scare in order to drum up public alarm (and sell newspapers)
4) The public, unable to understand the science, over-reacting and clamoring for political action
5) Politicians, unable to understand the science, over-reacting and responding to public alarm by rushing in ill-considered policies to mitigate the perceived risks
6) Politicians increasing scientific funding in order to find more evidence in support of the scare in order to confirm the rightness of their policies
7) Scientists duly supplying more evidence in order to attract further government funding (this evidence being used by journalists to drum up even more public alarm)
8) A rising awareness by scientists that the problem is actually much more complex (and the causes much more ambiguous and uncertain) than they originally surmised – and, anyway, far less risky
9) A rising awareness by the public and politicians that the risks have been exaggerated and the scare is not materializing – and the policies have done, and are doing, more harm than good
10) Scientists, journalists and politicians quietly retreating from association with the scare
11) The scare fading from the public consciousness
Today we are at about point (8). The trouble is that at this point the investment in the ‘cause’ has been so vast (both in terms of money and reputation/ego) that calling a halt has become virtually impossible (although Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord would be a good start). After (11), in the 2030s or 2040s perhaps, we may start to see many PhD theses being written by psychology graduates about the great global delusion of the catastrophic climate change scare of the early 21st century and the extraordinary story of how a small group of highly politicized scientists and computer modelers brought science into public disrepute as never before by corrupting the scientific process in order to achieve their hubristic and utopian goals.
Another way that a theory is declared dead is through obsolescence. In the 11 point program, it is step 12. Given the amount of investment in the faux crises, that is what will happen. The ones at the forefront hope to be dead by then, so they will suffer no monetary damage, and since their work is severely flawed to begin with, they did not expect it to last past their life times in any event. The only thing keeping them afloat is the faked outrage over the attack on THEIR bad science.
But they have nothing to fear from me. I will be dead as well. But laughing at them all the same.
Scientists and activists say this is for future generations. I guess if you’re dead, you don’t care that your child now despises you for throwing away billions that could have been put to a better use.
And this investment gets the kids and grand kids to Alpha Centauri ahead of the Chinese, how?
The once prestigious RS has descended into anti-science. Here they are quite clearly inverting the null hypothesis. They are saying they are going to wait until their hypothesis has failed to make any usable predictions for 50y ( two whole generations) before they will accept the possibility of rejecting it.
That is not how science works. This is pure politics.
One thing missing from this article’s 12 point plan is that this is not just about newspapers trying to sell more copies or scientists following funding availability. It is a “cause”. A politically motivated, pseudo-religious crusade.
There is an endemic left wing bias with most journalists believing it is their job to tell us all what to think and academics who think that being slightly above average intelligence and a specialist in some narrow field of study automatically qualifies them to dictate policy as well.
It’s identity politics. The left are generally sympathetic to enviro issues so they jumped on board the climate scare without any thought or fact checking. It was “obvious” : bias confirmation in action. It is now an article of faith, they will never question AGW because they would see that as being against their whole world view and political identity.
The article lacks insight and perception as much as it lacks punctuation and layout.
“pseudo-religious crusade”
nothing “pseudo” about it. !!
Greg,
“That is not how science works. This is pure politics.”
Politics is a very rubbery word, it seems to me, and I feel your analysis may be missing the influence (and in a sense the existence) of people with enough wealth and power to buy up the mass media, and seduce/buy up a great many people in governments/organizations of various kinds, and basically stage something like we have witnessed with this “climate change” scare.
As evidence I offer the virtual prohibition on even thinking that may be what happened. That really oughtn’t be there, it seems to me, and if one considers the ease with which something like the Russia/Trump collaboration theory, or the *Big Oil is paying big bucks to thwart the noble cause* theory, are incorporated into the corporate mass media/expertist hype with nary a trace of hesitation or incredulity, I am hard pressed to believe that virtual prohibition is not actually a convenient way of stifling discussion about a non-accidental origin to the CAWG (and other supposed crisis justifications for global governance and the end of national sovereignty/self determination/freedom).
— Susan Corwin
May 28, 2017 at 9:57 am
And this investment gets the kids and grand kids to Alpha Centauri ahead of the Chinese, how?–
Alpha Centauri is probably about +100 years from now, but that assume we accelerate or simply do some exploration of space.
What we should explore next [as far as near term focus] is the lunar polar region. NASA could explored the Moon a decade ago, but said needed money, but NASA spent about twice as much money on climate change related issues [and didn’t get a budget increase corresponding to the monies it spent] Or change change issues didn’t increase NASA budget, but had instead explore the Moon with that money, it could have finished exploring the Moon, already.
I am sure they are other area not getting funding because climate change issue sucked out the money of their budgets.
So had NASA finished exploring the Moon, we **might** be doing something in regard to Alpha Centauri in 100 years or more, but at current trajectory it’s looking more like +1000 years [if ever, there seems little value in going to Alpha Centauri, and the costs would approach the cost we squander on climate change- in future the cost could lower significantly but even in the future if cost somewhere around 100 billion dollar [2017 dollars] there isn’t any known value [yet] of doing this.
Gb,
Susan knows how to get to alpha Centauri, it just takes the right combo of technologies and you win a science victory for your civilization if you get there first.
With apologies to Churchill
Never has so much been spent by so many to benefit so few
We’ll be lucky if we are ahead of the Chinese in getting back to the Moon, much less Alpha Centauri.
Forget Alpha Centuri, Tau Ceti is the system to aim for. 1 G class star, no messy multi-star problems to deal with.
Kuhn also mentioned that the ultimate demise of a bad theory is when all the True Believers die.
” I will be dead as well. But laughing at them all the same.”
I agree, but personally I think the whole damned thing has already become a pathetic joke. I find it almost impossible to keep from outright laughing in their face when some supposedly educated ‘True Believer’ starts expounding on the subject of CAGW. It has become exceedingly hard to just smile and walk away.
Ian Aitken, Your article would be much easier to read if you had a lot more paragraphs and breaks between them. Otherwise it is a good summary of the present state of affairs.
+100
Agreed. Unreadable at present.
..Hey, want some cheese to go along with that whine ?
Unhelpful Butch.
The premise is correct…the article is poorly laid out.
A well written piece will pull the reader along.
This one was interesting, but I found myself having the opposite occur…the lay-out was a hindrance and I lost interest and could not finish reading it on the first go.
Paragraphs were invented for a reason. Paragraphs serve a purpose. They help hold readers’ attention.
Well-written, well thought out article … but, unfortunately, loses the readers’ attention due to lack of ‘breath’ between thoughts.
It isn’t just us. Editors of marketing material or fund-raising solicitations would recommend no more than 2-3 (not too long) sentences to a paragraph, each paragraph covering a single point.. Big, dense paragraphs are too daunting for probably 98% of the population (and for me, too, in this case).
Yes, unless it is legalese, in which case there should be 20 pages written all-caps bold 6pt or smaller font using words I never see elsewhere with accept button as large as possible. What is tort and why should I have some? And why do they keep telling they are not responsible on this and on that, but I am responsible on these and those? Are they cheaters?
In this case I read the blog entry with no problem, it probably depends on browser how easy it is. It was also, in my opinion, a stylistic effect to rant without chapter breaks.
Hugs,
I once had a Terms and Conditions from a – well-known, British–based – bank, that was just two sides of A4 paper.
Mind, it was in three columns, in legalese, and THREE point type.
Did I use that in lectures and seminars?
“Who has read the T&Cs?”
Ohhhh – yeah! You bet I did!
Auto, remembering Singapore . . .
Climate change’s no big deal, but paragraph obesity is reaching crisis proportions.
Nice
Here are the sentence-starts that should start new paragraphs in the first paragraph of this article, converting it into five bite-sized paragraphs:
Hardly – for unless we find
Basically, unless the ‘Uncertainty Monster’ is slain
But for how long?
So the politically-correct scientific shibboleths
The remaining three long paragraphs could be split up similarly.
Agree, long paragraphs make for difficult reading.
Here’s a recommended FIX: Zoom the article (I used 250%). This limits the amount of (enlarged) text visible on the screen, making it much more readable.
So, Mr. Aitken, thank you for your excellent summary of the problem. Your words ring very true.
I had absolutely no problem reading and following the article. Could be I write the same way. Paragraph obesity. I still have work writing reports on issues with complex and competing elements. I try to keep these down to three pages plus illustrations, as I’m aware readers start floating away after more than this.
I will save the article and the comments – useful for more than one reason.
jsuther2013 @ 7:30
Yes, the maybe paragraphs are a bit long but it’s the content that is important and the article is spot on. Certainly well worth the slightly difficult read on the screen.
Dittos
It’s all about the Benjamins. Without the USA ready to pay hundreds of billions of dollars annually the game is over. Not even the most greedy and corrupt third world despot will bother with it any more. It is ironic though that the German experiment into green energy has been an utter disaster and yet Merkel has the chutzpah to tell Trump to get in line with everyone else.
Shoshin wrote, “It is ironic though that the German experiment into green energy has been an utter disaster…”
Yes. I would even say it’s a catastrophe — the only sort of “catastrophe” associated with “anthropogenic climate change” which is in evidence, so far.
Don’t forget the entire state of South Australia being blacked-out.
It’ll get better with the importation of several million more 3rd world refugees. You’ll see.
MIsery loves company. The more, the better.
Exactly, what I was going to say, especially wants to cover up for her egregious errors and blame others..
+100
As Merkel herself said, it’s about globalization. If all the G7 are not equally yoked by regulation and the economic playing field is unlevel, the whole regime collapses. And they’re not ready for it to collapse, because a large number of German jobs depend on companies like Siemens continuing to build windmills.
While the Chinese burn coal and eat everybody’s lunch!
Didn’t the Germans try for * globalisation* about 80 years ago .Is this another attempt ???
The expression that best describes Merkel is:
‘Once she lied, she must continue to lie.’
Of course Merkel tell trump to get is line with her and everyone else, as that would help validate her own position. Not a good reason bug maybe politically effective.
(although Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord would be a good start).
A successful law suit would also be a good start.
Supporting Mark Steyn is the best hope for that.
Climate science only exists because government funds it.
That is a political decision
Once funding withers, it will vanish apart from a few enthusiasts.
yup. it is just that simple.
“and on the other hand something that is complex, nuanced, uncertain and requires a considerable knowledge of science to understand ”
nope- NFMW (not from my wallet) is simple and clear and solidly based on the fundamental right of ownership.
KISS.
but i remember reading a story by Ibsen a long time ago about how a certain well known screwup came to achieve his success as a paid scapegoat.
what people really vote for and pay for is somebody to blame so they can pretend they had nothing to do with it. this is a reality show called Life In the Idiocene.
people are simply thrilled to be an extra in a terrible production. one can name-drop and talk a lot about his bit part without shame for the awful flop it is. beats talking about the weather, right?
this won’t stop until a preponderance of individuals claim self possession and mean it.
july 4, 1776?
Allow me to walk my pet Peeve for a moment. I think “idiocene” would be, roughly, the geological era of individualism (or of the self or qualities of the individual).
I cringe every time I hear “idiocracy,” as it’s a *complete* malapropism, as it essentially means “self-government” (though to my knowledge the ancients never used it that way). It ranks up there with asking for extra neutrons on your salad at your Alcoholics Unanimous meeting.
Unfortunately, it is far, far too late to save the language.
that was in interesting etymology – i followed your clue.
your point, if aimed correctly, seems to find its target with the original greeks tho-
“In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary)”
so it was a way to distinguish the 1337 from the hoi polloi even then on this basis:
“Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), was considered dishonorable. “Idiots” were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters.”
since then, the word has served to label those of inferior judgement and has been used, indeed, as a medical term for the most serious category of intellectual disability
somehow, tho, the word idiosyncracy has retained the connotation your peeve prefers.
If funding from the NSF withers, green NGOs and foundations could make up the difference. And they could pressure state and foreign governments to donate to the Cause too.
Lots of companies in different fields (pharmaceuticals, car makers, bridge builders etc) fund their own research looking for what will actually work and produce a benefit (profit) for the company.
How much did, say, Solyndra, spend on “climate science”? Elon Musk? Tesla?
Just how and what does the UN or any other political entity gain from funding “climate science”?
PS It’s not their money used. it’s yours.
Government funding got the ball rolling. Now plenty of other organizations are spending too. Even Big Oil. They can’t afford not to hedge their bets.
And someone in forty years, can add another chapter to Charles Mackay’s timeless book ‘Extraordinary Delusions, and the Madness of Crowds’, to join all of the other delusions detailed there-in.
+1. Excellent book. It is a curious human trait for the need for an apocalyptic event and the assuredness that this is the generation that is living in the “End of Days”.
Nope. On a dime the pivot will be back to global cooling and the historical data will be “improved” Too much money and power at stake here.
The one event that would change everything would be a period of significant cooling. Is this possible over the next decade or two? It would take a repeat of the 1960s-70s cooling enhanced by reduced solar influence.
Yes, it is possible. Within the next decade we could have moved into simultaneous negative phases of the PDO and AMO while also experiencing a weak solar cycle 25. Time will tell.
If we get a 20 year cooling trend (which some scientist are expecting) then it we’ll be very hard to keep people interested in the Global warming theory. If it cools enough satellite data may eventually show a year as cold as the first few years of satellite data. At that point you might see news articles titled “2030 is the coolest years since 1980”. That would get a lot of attention. Still a lot of people will blame global warming. but if the next few years stay just as cold or get colder global warming theory will die.The APC will have no science to explain it. But those studying the sun will be able to show the sun caused the warming in 80’s and 90’s, and the cooling in later years.
Did you consider that additional data adjustments will be invoked to disguise the new 20 year trend in cooling as history has proven.
Don’t depend on real data with zealots.
Cat
+ Lots.
Maybe cynical -but that is where the money is.
Disbelieve the 8a5tards. Every time.
Auto.
The cooling will be caused by vulcanism in the same way as in previous grand minimums. The zealots will then blame volcanoes and not the sun. We need many papers and articles explaining how the sun directly and indirectly causes volcanic eruptions. These articles need to be published in the next few months, or maybe year, so that the public accepts the science before a major Iceland volcano (Katla maybe) or a major Indonesian volcano gives us the 21st C equivalent of 1815.
‘..neither the believers nor the skeptics can ‘prove’ their case…’ — it’s enough for the skeptics to point out that the ‘believers’ can’t prove theirs!
Bob,
For those that understand and follow the scientific process, you are correct. However this is not true for the general public.
Amen!
Each year they spend shovelling away the snow from their door, keeping the heating on in June to stay warm and turning it on in September, and seeing their grocery bill rise as food becomes scarcer, will cause the general public to wonder about this thing called global warming. Then it will collapse due to public disinterest and then there may be a backlash over the amount of their money that was wasted to try to prove it and to reduce CO2 for no reason.
Thank you Bob Denby! The burden of proof lies with the those making the claim to convince those of us who are skeptical.
It does not lie with skeptics to prove we have a sound basis for our skepticism.
Richard Feynman once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. He was right…and I am still waiting for it, IPCC.
@ Brian
As much as I understand your sentiment, grow up! You sound like one of these whining snowflakes. In real science there is no such animal called “Burden of Proof”. And an attitude like that is NOT helpful in any reasonable debate. The concept of “Burden of Proof” is too often misused in court to give a perp his 17th chance. If you want to convince people, acting like a 4 yo with a temper tantrum does not improve your credibility.
PS: No personal attack intended!
k, TheDoctor – fair point.
howbow this:
there is no debate. nobody has a right to my money, so it ain’t happening.
case closed.
(i just want to see if you know any rational arguments that justify fraud and theft- u know- as if there were a debate on it)
The scientific method that I was taught goes like this:
(a) one or more people observe a phenomenon;
(b) the observations are organized and analyzed;
(c) an hypothesis is proposed;
(d) persons independent of those performing steps (a) through (c) attempt to replicate the results, or find that they can’t – there is something wrong with the hypothesis;
(e) the hypothesis stands until someone can falsify it – then those proposing the hypothesis modify it, or admit it is wrong; and
(f) if, after a significant period of time, no one has been able to falsify the hypothesis, it becomes a theory. However, should the theory be falsified by an independent investigator, then it must be modified, or everyone agrees that it is wrong.
So, it actually IS up to us, the skeptics, to falsify the CAGW / CC hypothesis (please stop glorifying it by calling it a theory). I should think the the continuing, growing differences between the CMIP5 RCP8.5 graph of temperature anomalies and the measured data (even the diddled data), should be sufficient to falsify the hypothesis.
Now, try to explain that to someone who slept through high school science, or those indoctrinated in the K-12 system of the last 30 years. Don’t even bother trying to explain it to a journalist or a politician.
Brian,
You’re comment as elicited 3 replies as I write this. None of them, as was your comment, are really “bad”.
“TheDoctor” objected to you using the term “burden of proof”.
I think what you meant by that, to satisfy TheDoctor, was that the “CAGWist” need to supply an hypothesis that can be disproved.
They never have.
They’ve kept changing what observations would disprove their ever changing “hypothesis” until it has become unproveable.
It is now a political belief, a belief willing to burn its opponents at the political-stake.
“So, it actually IS up to us, the skeptics, to falsify the CAGW / CC hypothesis (please stop glorifying it by calling it a theory).”
What is the hypothesis?
Is it that without greenhouse gases earth would be 33 K cooler [average temperature of -18 C]
and that only greenhouse gases can increase the global average from -18 C.
Does this need to be disproven?
Or is this hypotheses stated incorrectly, if so, provide the correct one
What we have is something called a greenhouse effect, but of course it’s not the same effect
as an actual greenhouse [makes all kinds of sense to whackjobs] and tends to include clouds in this greenhouse effect [which isn’t the same as actual greenhouse] when clouds aren’t gases- they are droplets of water and particles of ice.
Part of problem is there is no author of the hypothesis though you have fathers [strangely, no mothers]
gbaikie –
The proponents of CAGW / CC push the hypothesis that the Earth is warming catastrophically owing to the rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.
“Retired_Engineer_Jim
May 28, 2017 at 11:44 pm
gbaikie –
The proponents of CAGW / CC push the hypothesis that the Earth is warming catastrophically owing to the rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Well, that would be something like, Earth is similar to Venus. Venus was once like Earth.
What happened with Venus is it’s ocean boiled away from runaway effect of ever increasing levels of CO2,
Now if that was the hypothesis, one could provide an argument against it.
I don’t think any serious scientist would support such a hypothesis.
It’s sort of like a hypothesis that Martians once existed.
“In which case we seem to be in a ‘wait and see’ position. But for how long? Even if the current global warming Slowdown persisted for decades it would still be possible that dramatic and dangerous warming was just about to resume.”
When you adjust the baseline downward based on an unproven premise to make a new baseline that defines reality as warming, then any actual cooling becomes merely a pause in the rate of warming. That’s basically what’s happening.
In other words, cooling is simply a negative rate of warming.
That’s a good approximation.
Wrong video showed up, something doesn’t handle a member of a list.
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usFhLh5k5tU&index=11&list=PL00u99IRraJtn38lgAequUjcZR_uFnkdY”
dangerous warming
Is “dangerous warming” like pornography, we can’t define it but we’ll know it when we see it?
I think it is more like the little boy shouting wolf – only in this case the wolf actually never arrives. That would certainly end up as a yawn. And in this case the little boy will grow up, become a sensible adult – and the whole childhood fun is all forgotten about.
hah- the little boy is still a diaper kid at 50 years old
he’s not gonna be a man ever.
I saw, I left: The deal about a long cooling period of decades in the face of rapidly rising CO2, is that natural variability MUST be a bigger factor in temperature changes (the longer the pause, the weaker CO2 turns out to be as a warmer). This is well understood by CAGW proponents and it is why, in desperation, observations had to be “altered”. Indeed, the dreaded “Pause” caused clinical depression among a number of prominent climate scientists a few years ago – it got termed ‘the Climate Blues’ – and they no longer practice.
Imagine 30-40y of a cooling with CO2 rapidly rising to double the 1850 CO2 level. This would unequivocally illustrate that CO2 is only a very minor player.
One day we might realize we have been fighting the same communist/marxist/socialist we have always been fighting
Now that would be real progress!
This, offered many times before, bears repeating: Christiana Figueres — at the time executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (at a Brussels news conference) admitted that the goal of environmental activism is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. She said, ”This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, changing the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution”. — (Investors Daily — 02.10.15—, ) — it ain’t science, it’s politics!
I believe that day has come. Look around.
Latitude:
Mistaken identification of the opposition is a sure way to lose a political dispute.
If you check reality you will see the global warming scare
(a) was started by right-wing Margaret Thatcher,
(b) is promoted by governments and politicians of all types, and
(c) communist China thrust the first ‘knife in its pack’ (at Copenhagen in 2009).
The global warming scare is independent of any political ‘ism’.
Governments have a variety of motives for interest in global warming. Each government has its own special interests in global warming but, in all cases, the motives relate to economic policies. And the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) exists to justify those policies (this is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC which are at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf ).
In general, the USA is the world’s largest economy and fears loss of economic power to other nations. Other nations desire gaining economic power from the USA. Universal adoption of ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, would alter competitiveness to provide relative benefit to the other nations. Unfortunately, if a few nations adopted the changes they would increase their manufacturing, transportation and energy costs and thus lose economic competitiveness and industrial activity to all other nations.
Developing nations cannot afford technological and economic advances that would benefit them and also reduce their increases to CO2 emissions as they develop, so they are seeking gifted technology transfers and economic aid from developed countries.
None of this has anything to do with “communist/marxist/socialist” whatever you may mean by that.
Richard
Margaret Thatcher on Global Warming;
‘In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed “Hot Air and Global Warming”, she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views. She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the “doomsters”, she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of “costly and economically damaging” schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.
In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Alas, what she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day. But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of “climate sceptics” has been almost entirely buried from view.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html
Richard, I have nothing but respect for your intellect, knowledge and integrity that you have shared with us here. But consider what I have argued with friends and family on the left: the party you think you are supporting exists in name only.
Globalization has outsourced the “party’s” constituency. We have the disconnect of voters voting in people who promise a chicken in every pot, and then they turn outwards and policy formulation is toward a Nouveau Monde of elitist governance – the so called Champagne socialists. The trend is toward doing away with meaningful voting altogether. The first step in this process was invented by the EU.
This has smeared party lines as all parties have been vying to get to the exclusive global banquet. Paradoxically, the last chance for the wellbeing of the poor has come to be the Nigel Farages, Donald Trumps and the heads of Eastern European countries. I even think Russia, by going it’s own way, is becoming part of the shrinking pool of common sense in this crazy world. The sanctions are largely a response to This aspect as is the turning of a blind eye on what is really going on in Ukraine.
“…None of this has anything to do with “communist/marxist/socialist” whatever you may mean by that…..” You’re entitled to your view but the UN/IPCC has openly stated that AGW has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with over throwing Capitalism and replacing it with Socialism. You do not need to interpret anything or read between the lines to reach that conclusion.
Nigel S, Gary Pearse and markl:
I reply to all of you in one reply and I intend no slight to anyone by doing that.
Margaret Thatcher created the AGW-scare for her personal advancement and dropped it when it was no longer useful to her. But her political Party (i.e. the UK Conservative Party aka the Tories) continued promoting it and still does.
As I said, governments of all types promote the AGW-scare and not only “communist/marxist/socialist” as Latitude said.
And, as I also said, mistaken identification of the opposition is a sure way to lose a political dispute.
Richard
“…As I said, governments of all types promote the AGW-scare and not only “communist/marxist/socialist” as Latitude said….” The progenitor of AGW is Marxist/Socialist and all the rest are either useful idiots or sympathizers…as is the case with the US. Obama stated in his first inauguration speech it was time for “wealth redistribution” and little did the people realize it was from America to the rest of the world, not within America. Out of the 190+ countries signing on to the Paris Agreement only a handful are donors and the VAST majority signed for the money. Without the UN/IPCC “Climate Change” would be a non issue and their goal …. as stated …. is to Socialize the world under their control. Maybe we’re discussing different things…. what is the point of this discussion?
richardscourtney
Who was responsible for the Climate Change Act 2008, the single most expensive and disastrous Act of Parliament in UK’s history? Thatcher Derangement Syndrome is akin to the more recent phenomenon of Trump Derangement Syndrome but that hasn’t reduced the number afflicted with many suffering both.
Nigel S:
All the major UK political parties (including the Tories) voted for the for the Climate Change Act 2008 so they were all “responsible” for it. Indeed, 463 of the 466 MPs voted to adopt the Climate Change Act 2008 and they are listed here.
Few people are still suffering ‘Thatcher Derangement Syndrome’. Most people now recognise the damage she did and, therefore, even most Tories try to avoid any mention of her.
Richard
markl:
You ask the question
It seems you have missed my post addressed to Latitude that begins
Many people of many different political views are using the global warming scare as a tool to promote their political views and they include both proponents and opponents of socialism.
There are also other important reasons for politicians promoting of the scare in addition to those I stated in my post addressed to Latitude. F
Richard
markl:
This is the completion of my post addressed to you because my arm ‘did its own thing’ again so my post went before I had finished it. Sorry.
For example, politicians need to raise taxes but people don’t want to pay taxes. So, politicians want a tax that people want to pay and, for example, the UK has one; i.e. the National Lottery. And when politicians cannot find a tax that people want to pay then they seek a tax that people will not object to paying; who could object to paying a tax to save the world for our children and our children’s children?
And these needs of polirticians are also independent of any political ‘ism’.
Richard
“… And these needs of polirticians are also independent of any political ‘ism’…..” Agree. My point is they are being useful idiots whether they know it or not. Played like a violin by a Marxist/Socialist cabal. Because they are using if for their own means doesn’t change the scam. They are unwitting collaborators duped into supporting a lie…. for whatever reason they attribute it…. the end is supporting the downfall of Capitalism. Very well done I might add.
richardscourtney May 29, 2017 at 10:58 pm
Thanks for that perfect example of TDS1.0.
“Mistaken identification of the opposition is a sure way to lose a political dispute.”
soooo true! that’s why the bull always loses the bullfight- he chases a red flag. it makes him so very controllable when there’s a chain you can yank that he is unable to resist.
That said, howbow this:
CAGW has become the umbrella for the agenda of predation that is common to all of the predatory class.
There is no right or left to this. It’s individual vs state.
All governments consume without producing, i.e., they are parasitic. None differ in principle; only in degree.
You praise socialism – the parasite brand with the highest degree of success in reducing its prey to poverty and death.
So carry on saluting the socialist flag. It’s considered great TV – especially when the matador gets both ears and your tail. It’s the circus the populace loves. Che Guevarra wears an Obama t-shirt and you wear the barbershop mirror version of infinite regression. You are a subject. In America, they are still citizens. You lost the habit and concept of liberty ages ago.
markl:
You say to me
OK. I understand that.
You are saying governments of all kinds are doing what they want to do because they have all been duped by a “Marxist/Socialist cabal” and not because they have joined a bandwagon that suits their various objectives
I need an additional piece of information before I accept that. Where do I get the tin-foil hat?
Richard
richardscourtney commented: “You are saying governments of all kinds are doing what they want to do because they have all been duped by a “Marxist/Socialist cabal” and not because they have joined a bandwagon that suits their various objectives….I need an additional piece of information before I accept that. Where do I get the tin-foil hat?”
Not what I’m saying. I’m saying the cabal is pushing the narrative…. in all forms, anything that will suit the needs of any government ….to further their goal and could care less if those governments know or care about that ideology. Let’s use their own words….””We (UN/IPCC) redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…..one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy…” Dr Endenhofer, IPCC, 2010
” The U.N.’s goal is to “intentionally transform the economic development model” in place since the Industrial Revolution…..This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history……This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution. ……This will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change…It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation…..”Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2015
If you think that requires a tin foil hat to interpret properly then you are part of the problem.
I guarantee you that the same people who do research into the delusion of CAGW will also truly believe the delusion of the latest man-made scare. They will look back at how it was wrong, but be unable to see the same parallels into their current beliefs.
I have a friend who says that a cure for cancer will only be found when another disease is found to take its place. His point is simple: if cancer was cured, then all those organizations looking for a cure for cancer would suddenly be useless and millions of dollars would instantly dry up. I personally do not believe him (because there will always be a disease that needs a cure so the people won’t be out of a job), but his reasoning has a point. CAGW theory will only die when another theory that is profitable rises to take its place. There is too much money at stake to just let it die without something else to shift to.
9) A rising awareness by the public and politicians that the risks have been exaggerated and the scare is not materializing …
Whether the AGW “crisis” is real or fantasy and the risks “exaggerated and the scare …not materializing” is less the issue than the adage “never let a good crisis go to waste.”
And if it isn’t a crisis pretend like it is!
We’ve been given the CAGW narrative relentlessly through the media for many years. Children are taught to believe this in our public schools. If people start to question this en masse, who knows what they might start to question. What if they figure out that our media is all owned by a handful of corporations? What if they start to question spending $trillions on the “war on terror” and wondering who is actually benefitting from that?
What would happen then? It would be a terribly frightful thing. I suggest we keep any skepticism to ourselves and go along with whatever we are told.
This is interesting.
We do accept that maths, languages, physics and maybe even history which is taught at school. We think it is fair and balanced, necessary, factual.
There is, despite this, certain soft issues that are very prone to zeitgeist. When we take a look at the curriculums of the past decades, the further back we go, the more we can recognize elements that we consider wrong or inappropriate.
This is not because we go forward and proceed towards factual facts, but because our values change and the values define what we think is worth teaching. And every time a new issue comes forward, someone is bound to find material on how to teach it. It will fail at some times. The reason for failing could be bad science, or it could be a paradigm. At the time it is very difficult to object.
If you tell people the temperature of Venus is not primarily caused by “carbon dioxide in its atmosphere”, many will react strongly. That factoid is indisputable. You can go and explain that the fact Venus is nearer to the Sun, and has more than 90 times the pressure in is atmosphere, and does not rotate like the Earth, and does not have the Moon, nor has similar tectonic activity or water, could play a major role to the extent that the fraction of CO2 has little to do with the surface temperature, but all you get as a response is surprise, aggression, dismissal and a dénier stamp. You should not question holy factoids.
Our children are taught in schools by quite ordinary people opinions that are ordinary. Climate change discomfort, and scare, are ordinary. Catastrophism or dénial are not.
Believe me, children will question things. They are very good at asking painful questions which teachers wriggle to answer. The teacher usually does not change her position. The pupils always take different sides.
Indeed.
Then people will start questioning many other untouchable, taboo subjects.
The question to ask about any sacred ‘truth’ is:
Who Benefits?
Makes one wonder why certain politicians ( and pope ) are decrying “populism”. Is it conceivable that this dreaded populism are normal, deplorable folks asking questions?
why certain politicians ( and pope ) are decrying “populism”
These are often the type of people who warn of the dangers of not following their dictates, and when their dictates are not followed THEY CAUSE THOSE WARNED-ABOUT THINGS TO HAPPEN.
Curious, eh?
>>he UK’s Royal Society expressed the view that it would
>>take 50 years of divergence between the observations
>>and the climate models before they would be convinced
>>that the theory of anthropogenic climate change was flawed.
They first said 15 years. Then 30. Now 50 years.
This is ‘long grass’ science.
Kick the problem into the latter half of the century, and your pension is secure.
Ralph
“ralfellis May 28, 2017 at 8:15 am
Kick the problem into the latter half of the century, and your pension is secure.”
That’s the problem they have discovered because they discovered there is no problem with climate.
The climate scare is not about science. It is about MONEY. Your money used to build solar farms in sunny Germany; wave power generators in Australia; solar road in France. This money does not end buried in a solar road; it ends in pockets of people who successfully lobbied for these nonsenses. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
In Northern Ireland there was the Renewable Heat Initiative scandal where people could burn wood chips and make a profit because there was no cap on subsidies, unlike in the rest of the UK.
People were running huge burners in barns located in remote fields, venting the exhaust into the surrounding air without using any of the energy efficiently. It was the most blatant money grab seen.
Scandalous, yes. Small fish. For an economy of scale, look at Solyndra.
CG; NI RHI is not small fish at all, $1.5 billion over 20 years cost to UK taxpayers. Solyndra is about a third as big cost to US taxpayers. UK civil servants are world class at messing stuff up.
I believe that this view of the future is grossly incorrect, as it assumes that neither transportation nor power generation technologies will change and therefore carbon emission rates will not change.
Point number one : the recent claim by a nanotechnology firm that they can produce the most expensive part of a lithium battery (the cathode) not only much cheaper but also produce a superior component, claiming a cutting in half of battery prices, to a level in which electric cars become more practical than gas powered jobs, spells massive reductions of carbon emissions from the transportation sector. Point two : Molten salt nuclear reactors are being developed by roughly half a dozen companies , including two nations (China and India), and promise the cheapest power achievable by any power generation technology, including fossil fuels, and produced in total safety.
I predict that a vast reduction in carbon will occur in the not very distant future, on the basis of economics alone, irregardless of how the public views carbon. The issue of carbon emissions, in my view, is a non-issue, for all sides of the debate.
Doubtful it will happen any time soon. In any case, as long as a source of energy isn’t being touted and sold as being “greener”, or “better for the planet”, and is in fact cheaper, without all the subsidies, mandates, etc., then fine and dandy.
All of which assumes that reducing CO2 is a goal to be desired. Plant food anyone?
Bruce, I agree, it is very doubtful any time soon. Being in the energy business for over 50 years, I cannot count the number of twipers, and heater at full imes I have heard similar claims. Very smart people have been working on the elusive battery without success. Maybe it is not even possible? Even if the magic battery is invented, it will take years and bundles of money to duplicate the existing distribution system that was developed by the free market. Think how convenient it is that you can refuel in a few minutes on the many miles of roads even in extremely rural back woods places. Think it would be easy to deploy tax dollars when we are 20 trillion in debt.
Does anyone believe our strained electrical grid can realistically grow to cover our transportation needs with solar and wind.
Even at home , a 200 amp service is recommended for charging the battery to get enough juice to efficiently charge the car. How many homes have this capability? What do you do if you live in an apartment. These and many other questions remain like taking 3 hours to drive home in a snowstorm with the lights, and heater at full blast.
I know under Obama the government was pushing to put the oil companies out of business with our tax dollars but have no solution for all the needs to implementhe electric car.
Nuclear is a long way from acceptance.
It seems we have gotten farther from any renewed push in that direction, not closer.
Which, given the demonization of CO2 and the general agreement that clean power and more reliable generation is a good thing, is simply hard to believe.
Nuclear may be a long way from acceptance in Japan, the U.S. and the E.U. but “You bet your sweet bippy” (to quote Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In) that if China and/or India, or anyone else for that matter, comes up with a safe, inexpensive, low maintenance and fat-finger proof nuclear reactor it won’t take long for general acceptance. They will soon spread around the world.
Well, we didn’t run out of whale oil for lack of whales. errr…almost…scratch that one. But we did discover the oil and gas that has completely transformed our technologies and society. I think in the final analysis your point Arthur, is valid and inevitable. I think it will be very expensive oil within 15-20 years that finally makes future solutions on the horizon economically feasible. And what we may discover in 5 years from now that may be a game changer. Electricity is probably here to stay for ever, since I can’t think of anything more practical that that. However, I don’t think we ever completely ever get off carbon based liquid fuels. They may not be FF in the long term future, but you can make ‘renewable’ carbon monoxide out of CO2 by just splitting one oxygen molecule off, which is then primary fuel stock for traditional refineries making synthetic fuels and oils, or can be burned directly in applications that require that.
And that takes us to about 2030 when these ‘carbon’ emissions are supposed to be so much lower than now anyway. Perhaps the carbon taxes will harm the economy so badly, that we won’t engage any of the new technologies just because we will have broke ourselves to the evils of so much taxation. Left alone, we will wind up at the same place sooner or later anyway. That’s why I don’t think penalizing CO2 with taxes that harms our economies right now makes any sense. That would be similar (but opposite) like in Roman days of slavery, that well, how about we only feed the slaves one meal a day, and limit their intake of water…just to save a little on input costs.
Oil is what saved the whales.
(I wonder how many Greenpeacers realize that?)
It takes energy to split off an oxygen atom from CO2.
Yes indeed it would take energy, but we would have a totally useful different end product. Say we had surplus renewables at night for example, we could use that energy to split CO2 from CCS and have a Carbon Monoxide commercial product, along I suppose with some spare oxygen that could be commercialized? I understand the process is fairly simple, the same as splitting water H2O into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The hydrogen fuel cell hasn’t really taken off because it is 55%-60% round trip efficiency hit in creating the hydrogen and then converting it back to water after useful energy is extracted. (by electrolyses) But if we were ‘trading’ surplus electricity for a Carbon Monoxide product, that could be used commercially in existing FF infrastructure, then is there any merit to this idea? The carbon chain can then be modified into a host of products, just as we currently do with FF. I know they are working on this, since I bought some penny stocks in this about 15 years ago, and they went broke, (my first clue) but maybe the technology and demand is now getting closer to commercialization. Anybody have any updates on this idea?
@Arthur-
Your extreme ignorance is showing. How much energy do your new batteries produce? Zero! They only store it. How much will that produced power cost? Lots! Without fossil fuels at least twice as much. Who will pay for the roads when fuel tax revenues are gone? Electric car drivers! Batteries are a carrot and a stick, and you’re the sucker chasing the carrot you’ll never get!
Logically, we will run out of fossil fuels, or at least abundance will decline and essential users like Petrochemicals will make fuel use like gold for railway tracks. Electric cars only look foolish in the short run. We WILL be tasked to make them work, and we WILL succeed in spades! Am I revealing my ‘cultural bias’ as an engineer? You can count on it.
Well I’m doing my best to bring about point 9): A rising awareness by the public and politicians that the risks have been exaggerated and the scare is not materializing – and the policies have done, and are doing, more harm than good.
And we’re grateful to you, Phillip!
My hopes, believe it or not, are pinned on the climate research units (don’t laugh) because sooner or later there will be a realisation that we need to follow where the science leads us. When that happens we will not be so arrogant as to assume we can change the climate but there will be genuine research into how better to predict it and therefore to deal with it.
There should never be a need for a genuine scientist to pack up and go home whatever his/her field of study. The rather unpleasant hangers-on are a different matter.
That might occur if they were populated by actual scientists rather than the current crop of pseudo-scientists trying to save the world.
The goal is to de-industrialize the West as part of “never again”. The method is irrelevant.
Bingo! This is a war against the power and wealth of the West! Much of the world is jealous or only sees the negatives of Western thought and structure. Improvements in quality of life and health and personal security apparently mean little. The Socialists won’t be happy until everyone is poor, the environmentalists until humans are erased from the planet and the poor of the world are happy to see us commit economic hari-kari so they can have it all. Our own over-educated elites are so comfortably self possessed that they can’t imagine that they might suffer in this unfolding disaster.
Why is it in this climate debate, the only thing talked about is CO2? In the MSM, the politicians (because they can tax CO2) and even here, most people only mention CO2 as the perceived villain or non villain. IMO, land use change and the heat sink effect are a much more pertinent factor, and one that isn’t mentioned a lot. The IPPC mentions it in their Summary titles, but then casts the whole net around CO2 as the culprit. Land use change and heat sink effect are huge instantaneous additions of heat and instability to the planetary weather especially on the continents where the convective heating must be re-radiated back to space or to the poles where the most pronounced warming is happening.
CO2 has theoretically caused a very minor amount of warming. It must be universally attributed to the entire planet fairly equally if the CO2 mixing in the atmosphere is homogenous after a few years. So a little bit of stable background warming everywhere has been a good thing for the planet, as compared to life in the LIA just 250-300 years ago. CO2 is probably the least of our problems. We have only had a total of .85 C warming since 1880, and half of that was from natural variation. And this is according to the alarmist scientists themselves. So if human kinds share of that is only +.42 C in 137 years, I don’t think we are in any danger zone based upon that kind of mild warming. A bit of warming is better than a bit of cooling, although it sure would be good to take the heat down a little so as the point of article can be made, that the C part of the AWG is way over hyped. We have to get a grip on this climate hysteria.
But I wonder what has more heat accumulation properties: CO2 radiative forcing or land use change on a planetary scale. We almost never talk about land use change here, or heat sink effect, or rarely do I hear it discussed anywhere else. I support the theory that CO2 is a fairly even background heat everywhere and fairly small in absolute terms of temp increases. But land use change with massive amounts of convective heating from equatorial & mid latitudes to polar warming of twice the rate everywhere else is what causes wacky weather and a loopy meandering jet stream, which can cause different weather events to unfold. This is where we can say with certainty that there is a small discernible human caused climate change. IMO, it is land use change that is really the elephant in the room when it comes to understanding the totality of climate change for which is what humans are concerned with, and the bit of global warming that we have managed to eke out by CO2 is only half the picture, or less. Maybe it is our collective human footprint and not our carbon footprint we should be looking at?
Why worry about it at all? Besides, land use is strictly a local issue. Government, as in the EPA, has no business telling people, sorry, you can’t build that (mall, or whatever) because “climate change”.
Bruce, I am not saying we need to worry about it, or proposing we limit human activity. We really need to understand that there are other causes to the effects that are being blamed on CO2, because that is what is sucking all the oxygen out of the room, which is the heart of the Paris Accord and all the limitations and taxes that will be imposed upon civilization because of demonization of CO2. Land use change is a global phenomena (mostly in northern hemisphere) when added up in aggregate, so I think it is much more prevalent than just being a strictly local issue.
Ron —
• CO2 is a significant residual in the burning of fossil fuels.
• Fossil fuels have been the driver of industrial development since the late 18th century.
• The modern environmentalist hates industrial development, just as he hates modern civilisation.
• CO2 (theoretically and in controlled laboratory conditions) can cause air to warm.
See where I’m going with this?
No, I am not sure…but I think you are maybe going to say that CO2 is the cause of most of our man made warming? I thought the CO2 re-radiated the LWIR back to water or land warming that, not cause air to warm?
Maybe enlighten me on how you were going to finish the “See where I am going with this?”
Burning old stuff (really old stuff) produces CO2.
Burning old stuff has, somehow, violated Ma’ Gaia. (Maybe “Her” recycling methods are a bit slow?)
The modern form of Gnosticism hates Man and everything he does. (Maybe “She” would have preferred an abortion?)
Under controlled, laboratory conditions a hundred years ago, CO2 could make the air retain more of the heat fed into it, focused only of adding more CO2. That’s all it was meant to show. (Earth would be a snowball half of the day if ALL of our atmosphere and the oceans didn’t retain heat. Any plants etc removing CO2 included?)
What they rely on is computer generated excuses to change past observations to support computer generated future “observations” that the actual “now” show they didn’t get it right.
PS I know that TWC hasn’t included the record highs and lows in their “Local on the 8’s”.
How many of your local stations still include the day’s record highs and lows?
I agree that our collective human footprint, not the carbon footprint is what we should be looking at. Whilst all the focus is in CO2, other environmentally damaging practices are being overshadowed and not properly managed. Land management practices, pollution of air and water, and waste management which are much more in our control are left with far fewer research and management dollars.
Years ago I thought that I read that there was a variety of air pollutant gases that were likely to be impacting the temperature in the upper atmosphere, but they are more difficult for the masses to comprehend, more difficult to measure, and are not ubiquitously used by every human and natural activity. So not so useful for a collective guilt trip, and not useful for taxing.
I think that a lot of environmental practictioners jumped on the CAGW bandwagon thinking that it was a way to solve all environmental ills, irrespective of whether they thought the hypothesis would stand up to scrutiny. Alternatively, they actually believe that humans are the sole cause of any climate change, and therefore they really believe that changing fossil fuel use will reverse any changes (eg. Coral bleaching). It is far more disturbing to them that they are NOT in control and that natural processes could be causing changes – because how then can they change it back to how it was before? It is far more alarming to a control freak that the earth might change all by itself!!
I am concerned that when the man made climate change theory is abandoned as a hoax, all the other more sensible environmental management issues are thrown out in the same bath water and we will be left in a more resource wasting, and polluting world than ever before – and then we will really have to worry, and no one will be listening anymore, just like the boy who called wolf.
“..I am concerned that when the man made climate change theory is abandoned as a hoax, all the other more sensible environmental management issues are thrown out in the same bath water….”
If you mean all the sensible methods to clean our air, water, and soil you shouldn’t be concerned because they are universally accepted and proven.
The mankind blaming statistical weather story ranks only 32 in the political G7 communiqué. The first concern:
Source: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/05/27-g7-leaders-communique/
Sounds like steps 9 and 10 are already there.
Not the way I see it. See step #2, “Sustainable development”. Reading the below link sounds like a ‘fantastical’ world. This will take lots of money to accomplish, the transfer of wealth, hence the Paris agreement. As CO2 output is aligned with the wealthy countries (except India and China), this is the vehicle to make them pay.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
Courage. “Sustainable development” comes after “shared values of freedom and democracy, peace, security, the rule of law, and respect for human rights”. These still mean something in Europe at least.
Most pseudo-crises disappear when a real crisis appears. I expect that this issue will be no different.
The Green Menace has beaten this by making sure all crises have their root in climate change.
It’s all about the “watermelons” (green on the outside and red on the inside) and the money.
…and a brown core…
We have many people who claim that a trace grass called CO2 is going to lead to catastrophic warming that could destroy our civilization. In fact, there is only a small part of the CO2 emissions that are because of man; so, it is a part of a trace of a grass that will destroy us. This is the story we have been fed ever since the “scientists” gave up on the “new ice age” as a way to get ever more funding.
We also have the luke-warmers who agree with the alarmist “scientists” except for one thing. The luke-warmers believe they have “cooked the books” and are sounding the alarm over what will be a small and beneficial warming caused by CO2.
We also have those who believe that CO2, on net, cools rather than warms and CO2 will have nothing to do with any coming change in climate. I note that during the space race that the US aerospace and meteorological community came together to develop the US Standard Atmosphere physical model of Earth’s atmospheric pressure, density, and temperature profile by altitude from the surface all the way up to the edge of space at ~100,000+ meters altitude.
“And never once used any “radiative forcing” from any IR-active greenhouse gases or any radiative calculations from any greenhouse gases whatsoever to produce an accurate 1-D model that could calculate Earth’s entire pressure, mass density, temperature, and molecular-scale temperature as a function of geopotential altitude (geopotential height ~ geopotential altitude ~ gravitational potential energy (PE)) profile from the surface to the edge of space.” (credit hockeyschtick blog)
I just toss out the official US Standard Atmosphere since it was said you had to have something handy to replace the prevailing madness. The last version of the US Standard Atmosphere was finished in ’76 I believe.
We can never win against people with tons of government money and whose predictions are for a century or more down the road unless we show that they are wrong. And they are wrong. Many things contribute to the long range change in temperature of this planet and I personally think it is time to have real discussion about how all the factors work together to cause change.
We are a one-trick-pony on climate at the present. That trick is CO2.
Since my 2010 Venus/Earth temperature comparison–which used the Standard Atmosphere for Earth’s tropospheric profile–I have spoken out continually for the physics behind the Standard Atmosphere. The voices on both sides of the climate war have ignored me (as they keep coming up with various ways to claim “it’s just a coincidence!” that the temperature vs. pressure curves of Venus and Earth are essentially the same, over the FULL RANGE of Earth tropospheric pressures, when the actual Venus temperatures are corrected only for Venus’s closer distance to the Sun). And as I have also pointed out, the Standard Atmosphere goes back more than a century (and in America, officially back to 1920); there has been no change in the model’s 288K surface temperature in all that time, and that temperature, while used by all and sundry in the debates, is HIGHER than the official present global mean, despite a supposed century of warming (and the Venus data I found on the internet and used was taken in 1991, thus clearly showing no global warming over the last century, from 1920 to 1991–so even the temperature records purporting to show such warming are false).
My simple contributions–more than just the Venus/Earth comparison–to the correction of climate science should have become front-page news worldwide, years ago.
Since shown to have the same relationship on all known planets with atmosphere.
Some of us listen and understand, Harry 🙂
Thanks for all you have done Harry. And good comment.
It is widely accepted that without the opacity of the greenhouse gases, the atmospheres of Earth and Venus would be close to isothermal, and thus the surface temperature nearly equal to the effective temperature of the planet. Are you actually suggesting that surface temperature is independent of the gaseous composition of the atmosphere? Do you expect Earth’s standard atmosphere would be the same even if it was 100% (instead of just 1%) optically inert gas such as Argon?
What would be the temperature on Earth if the planet stopped rotating? Let’s say you were stuck on the
sunny side with the sun overhead 24/7 for a year.
The answer is it would get to 450C.
I am old and cynical enough to believe that the CAGW foofraw will go down the same path as Richard Nixon’s War of Cancer. In the 1970’s, there was both a cancer epidemic scare and a proposed “solution”, which drew hysterical press coverage and government funding in the US. It petered out with a change in government and an eventual realization there was no epidemic.
We in the US still have lasting effects, like California’s Proposition 65 warnings “this contains/produces substances known by the State of California to cause cancer”, and excuses that at least it got medical funding for research on cancer.
Otherwise, it is like the old Saturday Night Live Emily Litella skits “Never mind”.
I have a radical idea. Let’s discredit science!
There is a growing public crescendo pointing out that science has become corrupt and ineffective and is causing immense harm. It’s time we started demanding more credible science. Probably the most effective thing we can do is insist on replication.
Most scientific research papers can’t be replicated even by the original authors. link Nobody should consider a paper worthy of being published in the prestigious journals without replication. Never mind peer review, it’s been shown not to work.
Insisting on replication would clear up 97% of the mess. OK, we know where I got that number.
Wrong, why we trust experts in spite of the fact that they most often wrong.
Rigor Mortis, Richard Harris shows that most medical research results are wrong, he shows the corrupt process that leads to that.
Expert predictions are garbage. People should learn to treat them as such.
“Richard Harris shows that most medical research results are wrong, he shows the corrupt process that leads to that.”
The government’s involvement and funding of science may well be what is causing the corrupt process.
The root problem is how to tell if research is good. Tenure committees and funders pass the problem on to the journals. The idea is that, if the research gets published in a high impact journal, it must be good.
My favorite example of passing the buck is the Bogdanov Affair. The Bogdanov brothers were accused of spoofing their PhD theses in string theory.
To paraphrase: “We don’t understand this string theory crap but if you can persuade a journal (or journals) that it isn’t bogus, we’ll accept that.”
We need basic research and somebody has to pay for it so I’m not against government funding per se. The question is about who to fund. A lottery might work as well as the present system. It would, at least, remove a bunch of perverse incentives that lead to really crappy research.
C.B., I agree. But I would add that before a study could be published, someone (normally the funding agency) should be required to fund one or more complete and independent audits of both the data and methods of the original study. After that both the original study and the results of the audit(s) would be published together, replacing the current pier/buddy review process with a paid and signed verification process.
Before any data, results or conclusions could be referred to as anything other than being unverified or conjecture, at least one additional independent study, using different data and methods, must be performed. Any published reference to the original study’s data, results and/or conclusions must be tagged/footnoted as unverified or conjecture until it has been replicated. This should probably lead to two levels of publication, one printing the unverified studies and another printing only replicated studies, both the original and the replication(s).
Following the above would have several advantages over the current system of publication. First, any study not worthy of replication would remain as nothing other than an interesting bit of data or conjecture. Academics could then be graded on the actual amount of verified and replicated research they performed and/or their ability to audit and/or improve upon other’s research, not on how good they are at writing proposals or technical B.S. This would would also limit use of unverified/purchased pseudoscience by politicians, businesses and N.G.O.s. And, it might eventually improve the reputation of science in the minds of the general public, that reputation having been almost destroyed by the current system (e.g., Climate Science, Nutritional Science, Medical Research and Education).
I have never seen any research that shows why the environment heating up a few degrees, equivalent of me moving from Virginia to Florida, would be any problem. After all, when people get old and feeble they move to Florida anyway. And the change takes place in the day it takes to drive down there, much faster than the 100 years it took for the world to warm a measly 1 degree. If farmers have to make changes due to climate change that will be just one more change they will make on top of the hundreds of changes they had to make to usher in the Green Revolution. That seems to be the gigantic hole in the alarmist’s position. Weather is suppose to get more extreme just because they say so. All studies previous to this latest scare claim it is global cooling which yields the most extreme weather.
The idea that warming is bad, let alone unquestionably catastrophic, is probably the most incredible part of this whole ridiculous meme.
+1. And warming by how much? And where? And when? Not much. Mid-latitudes. Night. Crises? I think not. And not much of any warming at all for the last 20 years. Amazing this “crisis”.
The problem is, it isn’t heating up. It seems to be indistinguishable from the 1970’s. 40 years of so called warming adds up to nothing!
Ian I believe there is a couple of thing you seem to have forgotten to factor in.
That is the damage caused by the fixes and prevention’s Lets look at alliterative energy as one example. As more wind turbine farms fail and solar fails to achieve as promised, people will start asking question. They will then look at other sources and re-accessing some of the old. As part of that reassessment they will have to look at how they negatively impacts the environment.This will open up some eyes and as other discover the real cost of the fixes and investigate then more eyes will open.
Second as the real environmental disasters become more pressing and as they figure out that climate change is not a fix. Activists and alarmists will become diluted as they move back to their pet cause. The result will mean more funds for other science. Scientist”s will then have a chance to jump ship before the ship sinks and give them a way out (that’s why I got out because I had doubts). It will also weaken the alarmist voice.
The entire AGW scam is being supported by useful idiots that are either bought or believe they will save the earth. All of them either directly or indirectly work at the behest of the UN. Without the UN/IPCC there would be no AGW. The stated goal of the UN is to bring about world wide economic change through destruction of Capitalism and replace it with Socialism. The UN is a HUGE organization with unlimited funds and no one to hold it accountable. They’ve managed to control the narrative so far so why would they stop? The enemy is the UN, not science.
What is being described – the inability of the AGW theory to be conclusively disproved – shows exactly why it is a pseudo-scientific theory. Scientific theories make clear predictions which, if proved incorrect, cause the theory to be modified or discarded.
Let’s remember that the IPCC is a UN agency constituted to support the case that global action is required to counter AGW. The drive behind the formation of the IPCC was a belief by a number of individuals and interests that global governance was necessary to avoid global conflict at least partly by redistributing wealth. This is exactly what Paris sets out to do – transfer wealth from the developed to the developing world. It has nothing much at all to do with reducing CO2 emissions – shut one factory down in the west and another more carbon intensive factory in the developing world takes its place. This is why there is absolutely no interest in the logical solution to countering CO2 emissions – namely by taxing goods and services according to the CO2 emitted in their production.
Fighting the AGW fight won’t solve the problem alone. We need to decide whether the global governance agenda (the EU writ large?) is valid. My opinion is that it is unaccountable, undemocratic and essentially opposed to the principle of liberty, and therefore to be opposed.
On the other hand, a series of international treaties designed to extend the benefits of the economic progress made by the developed world to the developing world in exchange for commitments to implement policies protecting individual rights and liberties and would be of value – as long as the developing world is accurately defined with a ranking of countries according to their progress, How China can be counted as ‘developing’ for the duration of the Paris agreement is beyond me.
By my understanding, ‘Cosmic ray flux theory’ states that during periods of low solar activity more cosmic rays are able to reach the Earth’s atmosphere and help seed cloud formation; thus creating a positive feedback (increased albedo) from the original forcing (reduced solar activity). Together these push global temperatures in a cooling direction.
Conversely, during periods of increased solar activity cosmic rays are effectively ‘batted’ away from the earth, reducing cloud cover and acting as a positive feedback on the warming caused by increased solar activity; so global surface temperatures warm up.
The current solar cycle, number 24, officially began in January 2008. It has been the least active solar cycle in living memory. So here we have a perfect opportunity to test the efficacy of cosmic ray flux theory. What have global temperatures done since Jan 2008; since the onset of the weakest solar cycle any of us have ever seen? Have they cooled, as expected by CRF theory?
The answer is that global temperatures have rocketed! The warming trend in the UAH v6 TLT satellite data set since Jan 2008 is currently 0.43 C/dec ‘warming’ (as of April 2017). That’s about as high as it has been for any similar length period throughout the entire UAH record; including periods with much higher solar activity. It’s a similar story with the other satellite data set, RSS, and all the surface temperature data sets too.
Perhaps the reason ‘cosmic ray flux theory’ doesn’t receive the scientific interest awarded to AGW theory is that it has been demonstrated, through observations made by multiple agencies, to be wrong?
DWR54…I think you included most of the recent super El Nino of 2015/16 in your ‘rocketing’ temperatures increase of .43 C/Decade. The alarmist scientists only claim .85 C warming since 1880, of which they attribute half to natural variability. And even a complete doubling of atmospheric CO2 will only lead to an increase of 1.2 C and that won’t happen until about 2050. The argument and debate really is what are the feedbacks, and what is reasonable to expect?
I’m not arguing that the trend since 2008 is indicative of future warming; just that it demonstrates the weakness of ‘cosmic ray flux’ theory. Even before the El Nino there was warming since 2008: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2008/to:2014.5/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2008/to:2014.5/trend
How do you eliminate La Nino and the PDO from any global measurement? A bit tricky!
We do not know, simultaneously, the value of the cyclic components of our global temperature,
Making it very difficult to isolate any cyclic component.
Then you have CO2/H2O/CH4/Land use/greening/UHI.
Not so easy to tease out valid effects, if that is possible at all.
The above is what we are aware of, then there are the unknowns…….
DWR54, I’m not a big fan of cosmic ray theory either. However, when you feel the need to pick huge cherries to refute it, all you accomplish is giving the theory more credibility. If that’s all you have, you have nothing. Starting with a strong La Nina and ending with the super El Nino is beyond ridiculous.
About the only thing your comment accomplished is proving you are completely clueless.
Richard M
I remind you that the reason I started in 2008 is because that is when solar cycle 24 began. I said January, but having checked again it was December 2008. Here is the updated UAH chart: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2008.9/to:2014.5/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2008/to:2014.5/trend
I’m glad we now agree that it is ‘clueless’ to start a trend at a peak or trough in the ENSO cycle.
DWR54, you can use any excuse you want for cherry picking but it is still cherry picking. Citing a trend when you pick huge cherries then makes you look even worse.
What you need to do is make sure your starting ending dates are not significantly influencing the trend. If you have both El Nino and La Nina event at the start of a trend, and your trend is long enough, then it won’t be a problem (as is the case for using 1997 or 1998). Same for the end of a trend. The key thing is to actually use your brain and understand how your choices of dates affect the trend.
I know that is asking a lot as your last sentence made all too clear.
“Perhaps the reason ‘cosmic ray flux theory’ doesn’t receive the scientific interest awarded to AGW theory is that it has been demonstrated, through observations made by multiple agencies, to be wrong?”
Possibly The theory is still not fully developed since we have very little data to show how cosmic rays affect cloud formation. That said there are other theories on why low sun spot numbers coincide with low temperatures.
One theory is based on the fact that the sun wobbles as it travels through spaced due to the orbits of the planets. This periodically moves the sun a little bit closer to the earth or further away. This distance change can be calculated. And as a result the amount of energy delivered to earth can be calculated. The variation is larger than the IPCC claims.
Another researcher has been trying to understand the semi periodic behavior of unusually wet years. He eventually did find a link between sun spot activity and unusually wet years. A mathematical model of his theory was created in 2007 and it predicted 2016 would be a wet year. The prediction appears to have been accurate. Many areas of the world have experienced flooding during the winter of 2016 -2017. California experienced its wettest year on record this year.
https://anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/2982-journal-of-civ-eng-vol-49-no-2.pdf
Steven,
“One theory is based on the fact that the sun wobbles as it travels through spaced due to the orbits of the planets. This periodically moves the sun a little bit closer to the earth or further away. This distance change can be calculated. And as a result the amount of energy delivered to earth can be calculated. The variation is larger than the IPCC claims.”
The entire solar system moves about the Sun’s center of mass taking all the planets with it equally. The planets are locked gravitationally in their orbits about the Sun and they just keep their regular orbital distance for that process. So the Sun does not move further and closer away as you suggest. The Sun’s wobble is caused mainly by Jupiter and Saturn, but even the inner minor planets provide a very tiny amount of tugging. For every action…there is an equal and opposite reaction. In this scenario, the distance from the Earth to Sun does not change because of this fact. The barycenter (or barycentre; from the Ancient Greek βαρύς heavy + κέντρον centre) is the center of mass of two or more bodies that are orbiting each other, or the point around which they both orbit. It is an important concept in fields such as astronomy and astrophysics.
You may be thinking the Earth/Sun distance change that is attributed to Aphelion and Perihelion which is currently about July 4th for the former and Jan 3rd for the latter.
From Wiki…
Earth is about 147.1 million kilometers (91.4 million miles) from the Sun at perihelion around January 3, in contrast to about 152.1 million kilometers (94.5 million miles) at aphelion around July 4 — a difference of about 5.0 million kilometers (3.1 million miles). These dates change over time due to precession and other orbital factors, which follow cyclical patterns known as Milankovitch cycles. (In about 12,500 years, these will be reversed for the respective hemispheres on Earth.)
Because of the increased distance at aphelion, only 93.55% of the solar radiation from the Sun falls on a given area of land as does at perihelion. However, this fluctuation does not account for the seasons, as it is summer in the northern hemisphere when it is winter in the southern hemisphere and vice versa. Instead, seasons result from the tilt of Earth’s axis, which is 23.4 degrees away from perpendicular to the plane of Earth’s orbit around the sun. Winter falls on the hemisphere where sunlight strikes least directly, and summer falls where sunlight strikes most directly, regardless of the Earth’s distance from the Sun.
In the northern hemisphere, summer occurs at the same time as aphelion. Despite this, there are larger land masses in the northern hemisphere, which are easier to heat than the seas. Consequently, summers are 2.3 °C (4 °F) warmer in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere under similar conditions.
steven F
The point is that in the current case low temperatures *don’t* coincide with low sun spot numbers. During this latest solar cycle, the weakest in living memory, new temperature records have been set in every single global temperature data set we have, including satellite data and we have seen record or near record rates of warming on a decadal scale.
As others here have pointed out, the period since 2008 has been dominated by the recent big El Nino; but If weaker solar output is so effortlessly overcome by natural ocean oscillations then they are hardly on a scale worth worrying about. Certainly nowhere near on the scale predicted by some, including David Archibald: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-shaping-up/
The planet will cool due to sudden interruption to the solar cycle. There is now some evidence of the start of cooling.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.5.25.2017.gif
The delay in cooling was caused by solar wind bursts from coronal holes that suddenly appeared on the surface of the sun even though sunspot activity was low. Coronal holes create solar wind bursts which causes warming in high latitudes and at the equator.
Comment:
Sunspots and coronal holes eject pieces of magnetic flux into space. The solar wind carries these pieces of magnetic flux out into space past the orbit of Pluto. The tenuous gas and magnetic flux is called the Solar Heliosphere.
The solar heliosphere blocks what is called for stupid archaic reasons Galactic Cosmic Rays GCR or Cosmic Flux CF most is physically, mostly high speed protons, physical name should have been CP (cosmic particles) The high speed protons GCR or CF strike the earth’s atmosphere and create cloud forming ions.
The cloud forming ions help clouds form, change the cloud optical properties, change cloud life times, and affect rainfall.
The second cloud modulating mechanism (in addition to the ion mediated nucleation, GCR mechanism) is the cloud modulating mechanism which is called electroscavenging.
Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the atmosphere which in turn causes an electrical current to flow from high latitude regions of the planet to the equatorial regions. This flow of current also causes changes in cloud properties and amounts in both locations.
Comment: Electroscavenging
High speed solar wind bursts created a create a space charge differential in the earth’s ionosphere which in turn causes a movement of electrical charge from the earth’s poles to the equator.
Why coronal holes appear, when coronal holes appear in the solar cycle, and at what latitude coronal holes appear on the sun surface is not known.
The electrical charge movement removes cloud forming ions in the high latitude regions which causes there to be a reduction in low level clouds and an increase in cirrus clouds. A decrease in low level clouds warms the region in question due to a reduction in short wave radiation that is reflected to space albedo and an increase in the high wispy cirrus clouds causes the region in question to warm due to increased greenhouse effect of the high altitude water.
The return electrical current changes cloud properties in the equator and changes cloud lifetimes in the equator. El Nino events occur when there is large movement of electrical charge.
Recently although the number of sunspots has been dropping there has been a large number of persistent coronal holes on the surface of the sun in low latitude regions. It is these coronal holes that are partially responsible for the lack of significant cooling of the earth due to the astonishing slowdown in the solar cycle.
Offset the anomalous number of coronal holes is a reduction in the solar heliosphere density of 40%. The low density of the solar heliosphere (Solar heliosphere is the name for the tenuous gas and magnetic flux that stretches far past the orbit of Pluto.) reduces the rise time of the magnetic pulse that is caused by solar wind bursts which in turn reduces the effect on the earth ionosphere.
Now finally the size of coronal holes on the surface of sun has started to shrink and the coronal holes have started to move to high latitude regions on the surface of the sun where they no longer affect the earth. Bingo, there will be a significant increase in sea ice in the Arctic and the planet will cool. We are experience the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.
http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/Bibliografi/Tinsley2007,GlobalElectricCircuit.pdf
Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf
William… As Spock would say, Fascinating! I learn something new here everyday, but this is something one should really give some extra serious thought to. A few questions?
“Why coronal holes appear, when coronal holes appear in the solar cycle, and at what latitude coronal holes appear on the sun surface is not known.”
Do you have any pet theories why/when/where they appear? I recall an obscure scientific paper from the 1980’s by an obscure German scientist, and his hypothesis was that it was predictable and caused by the orbital forcing of mainly Jupiter and Saturn, which caused the Sun to wobble about the center of mass of the solar system and these barycenter cycles somehow caused these through forces I am not sure exist, since I don’t know that his hypothesis gained any traction in that regard. But it sounded good in theory, and in about 1988 he predicted a cooling would be deeply intrenched by 2030. It seems things are lining up that way.
And on the chance you are a knowledgeable solar scientist…
“and an increase in the high wispy cirrus clouds causes the region in question to warm due to increased greenhouse effect of the high altitude water.”
Would all the multitude of high altitude jet liners spewing contrails of a lot of mainly water vapor exhaust (plus high altitude CO2), be a significant agent of high altitude warming in concert with differing Sun states? I recall after Sept 11, that when the skies were shut down over NA for several days, that some meteorologists noted that night time temperatures were a bit cooler, and day time temperatures were a bit hotter. Is there anything to this?
Low latitude coronal hole solar winds are now used as a major earthquake timing predictive tool with convergence streams to major low pressure systems and troughs on Earth providing a location predictive tool. See http://www.quakewatch.net for detailed information.
“Do you have any pet theories why/when/where they appear? I recall an obscure scientific paper from the 1980’s by an obscure German scientist, and his hypothesis was that it was predictable and caused by the orbital forcing of mainly Jupiter and Saturn”
Ron is this what you were thinking of? The theory was refined by including all 4 of the outer planets.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/13/solar-cycle-mystery-solved/comment-page-1/
Great post! This has a very loud ring of truth to it. It would be so nice to witness a resounding public vindication of truth and scientific process with the overturning of the anthropogenic global warming belief system before the eyes of the world, but people are so much more complex than that, and beliefs are far more sticky than facts. I would like to see opinion leaders who understand the swindle that has been perpetrated do more to encourage public debate about science and the flimsy foundations of CAGW. It might speed this process along, it I fear there will be no Hollywood ending.
Impossible to counteract emotional arguments with dry facts.
The alarm won’t be dropped until globalists find a better vehicle to achieve global socialism. Even then, the green NGOs have billion$ a year at stake, so won’t let it go until another environmental crisis is found to replace it.
What does the future hold for the climate change debate?
I think it can begin now. Debate has never really happened. Global Warming caused by man has just been vomited into existence by self-serving activist journalists, funding-seeking scientismists (Michael Nature Trick Mann), pandering politicians and, leftist social engineers. All a$$h0les
If the a$$h0les want to talk science I’d be willing but it has to be taken out of the realm of the UN for starters.
Truth by science should prevail. Not “truth” by popular opinion.
I speculate that as a consequence of a new truthful debate the activists will fade, funding will atrophy, and the obvious uncertainty and sh1tty modelling will reduce the debate to a complete bore, therefore obscurity.
Excellent article! I agree that psychologists will be snickering about the massive scare drummed up for nothing but to get money.
I agree – I’ve been following the Climate Change scare since 2009 and I fail to find the “Climate” part all that interesting. Clearly, nothing unusual is happening climate-wise that hasn’t already happened. Whatever caused the climate then, is probably causing it now; and honestly we haven’t the slightest clue.
Mr. Aitken, let me put it this way, as Mann did, blunt or even very blunt.
I do not really care about “whys”, ” hows” and “whats” about your motivations and the drive inspiring this blog post from your point of view or your position…… meaning that I am not being judgemental….
But still anyway regarding your blog post, it stands as a proper shiny “Trojan Horse”…. A “T.H” trying to default render null and valueless the Congressional testimony of Dr. Judith….in essence…..that what it is in it’s back bone.
Stop trying to increment ACC to a status of a theory or hypothesis…it is not it…….ACC is not a hypothesis or a theory……….The only theory there that strongly supports ACC is the AGW…….ACC is not a theory……any policy making in accordance to ACC, when AGW is dead and slayed……regards only the Data and the assessment about and in relation to climate and climate change, short and long term…….
is not any more about theories or hypothesis and the long silly fights and arguments in the context of hypothesis and theories….
ACC can be any thing else but not a hypothesis or a theory……..please do stop propagating such a silly thing….
If you think you have a valid and important point, as it stands, you have to get to give a testimony to the congressional hearing……and make clear your point that Dr. Carry’s testimony means not much, because ACC magically has turned to be a hypothesis…..good luck with it if you happen to find it persuading enough..
cheers
What are you babbling about now?
What is “ACC”?
Anthropogenic Climate Change
AG CO2 increase is claimed to cause AG Warming.
AGW is claimed to probably cause particular types of ACC.
AGW is the cause, ACC is the effect, in that argument.
He points out that there is a physics-based AGW hypothesis and holds that there is no viable (evidence based) ACC hypothesis.
The AGW hypothesis is struggling, largely because the the rapid increase in CO2 over the past 20 years without any meaningful rise in temperature.
There was never any evidence of an AG-induced change in the climate. That would require being able separate single contributors to a change in an inherently chaotic system and quantify their relative contributions. Good luck with that…
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Warsaw
May 28, 2017 at 5:27 pm
Thank you Crispin, for trying to explain my point to Meni….Appreciated a lot.
But if I may attempt a further explanation, at one particular point, that it is and seems important to me….
Yes you are right about the struggling of the AGW hypothesis as you put it, but from my point of view is a little or a lot more than it when concerning USA state….
There is a congressional testimony of Dr. Christy that simply destroys it, the AGW, literally.
The testimony of the brave Dr. which had his office sprayed with bullets if you remember……..
His testimony is enough in the way it stands, to fully support a USA stand against the Paris accord……
You see, in the context of this very blog post, as far as USA as a nation concerned the bang has already happened, very loudly and clearly, and very vividly , to a point that even Skeptics like ones here at WUWT can not actually believe it and see it OR HEAR IT…
In the USA nation the science has spoken and also testified before the Congress, very clearly, about the ACC and the policy dictated by it , and the science has being very much clear about it, with no ANY doubt at the point that persisting any further and flirting any further with any climate change policy, as per the ACC science is ridiculous and with no any bases in science…..and probably very dangerous when the economic impact considered
Four distinguished scientists have bravely testified about that, even when considering Mann in this simple aspect, have to be recognized , that he was also has being brave enough to stand up for it…..regardless of the outcome.
Simply as far as USA is concerned……the bang has already happened…the science has already spoken…now it is up to the governing powers and the elected politicians……As far as science is concerned the hands are clean, when concerning USA…….very strange but that is how is in principle by my point of view…
Please do consider in USA the big bang has already happened……no any chance for any whimper there any more in question or doubt……..
Dr.Roger Pielke Jr and Dr. Judith Carry with their testimony have scientifically tightly sealed and closed any other doors to ACC and climate change policy based on it, when further attempts than hypothesis and GCMs is considered and attempted to apply……
But what is very obvious is that the Dr. Christy’s testimony can not be actually challenged scientifically before the Congress or any where else……unless the one who could ever consider it is simply just a mad or silly one, and definitely a resident of the Planet B of Nay….
So when it comes to USA law makers the USA’s State department and the USA President, the call in the end about climate change policy has to be clearly weighted in accordance with the Scientific position according to the USA Nation and its scientific official position, as clearly demonstrated and uphold in the four testimonies before the congressional committee, I think, as per the stand that science officially has taken before the highest political and governing institution in USA…..if I am not wrong.
Big Bang…very very Big one…..no whimper there..:)
This probably went to long…:)
cheers
Every time a science was “official”, it turned out that it was pseudo-science. The climate science of the IPCC is official, so it’s pseudo-science. Quod erat demonstrandum …
True. As Feynman so sagely said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”.
Copernicus and Galileo began modern science by breaking free from the authority of the Bible and Ptolemy, and Vesalius from Galen. Science has progressed by showing humans how insignificant we are. Just as a child has to learn that it isn’t the center of everything, our species is stumbling toward maturity by recognizing how unspecial we are.
We do not reside at the center of the universe, which revolves around us. We are not a specially created, perfect species in God’s image. We do not have enough power significantly to alter our planet’s climate.
Catholic parochial schools used to do a good job of teaching kids that they aren’t special in a good way. Nowadays public schools do the opposite, trying to make every kid think he or she is special, which genetically speaking is true, if special mean unique. Even identical twins aren’t exactly. We are all born with our own mutations, which themselves may or may not be special. We accumulate more of them during our lives, hence getting even more “special”. But this isn’t what schools mean by special.
The “science” will stop the moment the university faculties and government/quasi-government institutions (eg UK Met Office, Nasa, NOAA, BoM etc) pushing it have their funding cut.
All it takes is a politician/political party in power who/which has the bottle to do it….or a real shooting war, or an economic crisis of epic proportions.
We may get any one of the three, or all of them, within the next few years. The worm is turning…
Fantastic article. I’m impressed by truth. Appreciate it when I discover it.
Nice work.
I fear the picture painted in this article is right, however there may be another possibility. Never underestimate the rats leaving the sinking ship. There may come a point where politicians prefer to blame scientists for ‘tricking them’, at which they will be as vocal condemning the science as they are supporting it.
‘..There may come a point where politicians prefer to blame scientists for ‘tricking them’..’
Unlikely. The pols will never turn their backs on those who pay for their campaign TV commercials — the NGOs. (And the NGOs are way too slick at fleecing the very rich and the very naive.)
Ronald Reagan in his 1987 speech to the UN, said:
“In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”
It would be interesting to see how humanity would react to say, an incoming significant asteroid/comet destined to hit earth and perhaps destroy civilization. Would humanity collectively rise to the occasion and work together through hard work, monetary sharing and finally action to be able to actually do something about it? That would be our finest hour if we were able to rise above our sectarian tendencies and achieve that success. We know that if humanity is to continue thriving into the long term future, that we will have to finally work together to solve all our problems, known and unknown, and not destroy each other.
But, the radical CAGW meme, that we are all doomed unless we change our evil CO2 ways as an existential threat to humanity, is a false flag. And how the planet must come together to ward off this threat of imminent destruction. Of course, it is much more complicated than that but we see how the Paris Accord is flawed in allowing most of the countries on earth to continue unbridled expansion of CO2 activities while receiving the benefits of the charity of 10-11 OCED countries, who simultaneously must scale back their emissions while taxing their citizens to send the charitable proceeds to the countries who will then be able to unfairly compete on an playing field that is no longer level to us.
Of course all these beneficiary nations are going to proclaim how dangerous CO2 is, while China becomes the new leader on combatting global warming/climate change and will be selling all these countries their solar and wind products while continuing their aggressive pursuit of CO2 intensive activities. Why would we negotiate this particular deal, if the goal was to actually reduce CO2 emissions? Obviously, it isn’t about that, as is proved by the actual outcome of said agreement. But this global agreement on reducing CO2 to combat the threat of global warming and climate change has nothing to do with that goal. It is a good thing that an asteroid or comet is not coming our way, because we can’t even properly identify what the real problem is with CO2 or if we chose to, how to deal with it effectively if that was our real goal.
Way before Thomas Kuhn (1962), the mass psychology of crowds and their follishness had been recognized and documented by Charles Mackay in his “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” (1841). The AGW scam embodies a number of disparate crowds, all operating at the same herd instinct level. His book is due for an update as there are numerous new delusions to serve as examples, such as provided by the author of this blog.
How to end the “hoax” with a bang, not a whimper:
Take a new theory about climate. Conduct many repeatable experiments to show theory is valid. Use new theory and experimental results to build something practical and useful which you can sell for a profit (an energy producing device would be ideal). Skeptic/New theory enthusiast gets Nobel prize.
It’s like an episode of “Black Adder”.
“Sire, I have a cunning plan!”
No turnips required, just gravity and an ability to think with an open mind.
The warmistas are the only people that think that the climate is so simple that one theory that can be dreamed up in advance is all there is to it.
Skeptics know this is the simplistic nonsense of simpletons.
Oceanic acidification is the most likely diversion.
Seems doubtful.
The oceans have never been acidic and never will be.
And there is no evidence that the overall pH of the oceans is changing in a definable direction.
The fact that acidification is just another scare story won’t stop climatologists from endorsing it. They’re motivated by tree-hugger feelings, so any of man’s impacts on nature are viewed by them as harmful and indefensible.
And there is no evidence that the overall pH of the oceans is changing in a definable direction.
Yes there is. Stop lying.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-F7iKEeFTbs0/U9mBOtLSRcI/AAAAAAAAA4s/VBbNA_o7vVE/s1600/Chart+%E2%80%94+Decline+in+pH+measured+at+the+Aloha+station.png
“tony mcleod May 29, 2017 at 4:30 am”
Models and estimates and small sample zones represent global ocean and acid content? Rain water is BELOW pH7, ocean is ESTIMATED to be 8.2, to 8.1. Acid? You need chemistry lessons!!
Ian, your thinking on how the CAGW thing will end is good, but your sorties into the underpinnings of the science you take at face value. Scientists did start off believing in what they were doing, but when doubt reared it’s head, they cooked the books and doubled down.
Even before erasing the Pause and it’s implications, , Mann et al felt the need to abolish the LIA and the MWP in 1998 and Santer found it necessary to write a hyped alarm for policy makers when the science section said there was no evidence yet of AGW in the 1995 report. Hansen had already delivered a dire warning to Congress in 1988 and felt the need to shut off airconditioners and close windows to heat the room up! Government saw a way to tax carbon and push a global governance agenda.
The alarm was manufactured early. If someone says their is a teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter, should we keep an open mind,, pour trillions into it and wonder if it’s correct or not? Should sceptics have to offer an alternative theory?
You never know. When in 1964 Lysenkoism ended after having been rampant for 30 years it did so very abruptly. When Andrej Sakharov read the riot act at the 1964 meeting of the Academy of Sciences, denouncing Lysenko as a quack, the latter disappeared from public view overnight. Less than a year later Lysenko and his ism had been erased from the Soviet history books. In my last job in bioinformatics I had 3 russian colleagues, only one of them was familiar with its history and one of the other two had never heard of it.
It may, of course, have helped that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state and also that in 1963 and 1964 the harvest had failed disasterously, demonstrating clearly the idiocy of that pseudo science. But perhaps, if enough people in positions of power are angry enough when they realise that they have been told very expensive porkies, who knows what would happen?
We need an alternative scare to replace the CAGW – how about some food scandal or water shortage?
>>
Basically, the man-made climate change crisis idea will probably simply follow a trajectory, not dissimilar to that of many other ‘man-made global crises’ (such as the DDT or BSE ‘crises’) . . . .
<<
Ozone hole.
Jim
I am generally in agreement with the gist of this, except that I predict the collapse of global warming pseudoscience will be much sooner and much more sudden. I give it five years. Of course, it will be quicker if we have a return of “the pause” and slower if we have another few years of warming. Watch how the next IPCC report handles the estimate of climate sensitivity; they can hardly leave it unchanged again.
We can expect the collapse to be messy, confused, and inaccurately interpreted by the media.
A model is the recent collapse of the “low-fat diet”, another government-promoted pseudoscience (see the book by Nina Teicholz). Although that doctrine has died, never to recover, there are still few people who grasp the point that the notion you can give yourself heart disease by eating fat is unfounded, and that government-promoted pseudoscience has led directly to the present epidemics of obesity and diabetes. You still find items on supermarket shelves boasting that they are “fat free”.
The consensus ideologues have various ploys at their disposal. One is to keep on saying what they say now, that the “deniers” deny there has been any warming, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that CO2 emissions contribute to warming. Most typical consumers of the media have no idea that 99.9 percent of deniers don’t deny these facts but insist upon them. Another ploy is to give the impression that the retreat from high climate sensitivity has been occasioned by surprising new discoveries. And of course we will keep hearing that “even if it’s not as bad as we thought, we can’t be too careful.”
So, even though it may well be thirty or forty years before everyone understands that the whole thing was a major blunder, in which a segment of institutional science was hijacked by ideological zeal, the actual collapse of the pseudoscience will occur within ten years, and given a resumption of the pause, five years.
One thing to watch for is the orthodox catastrophists turning upon themselves and attacking each other with the viciousness they have heretofore reserved for skeptics, as some scientists, without openly abandoning the official line, make concessions which the more extreme proponents view as “denial”. We are in for some hugely entertaining shenanigans.
FIRST there would have to be actual modeling of climate done… this is where I get off the whole “CO2 BAD BAD” bus. There *aren’t* any actual models of climate. 100% of what has been pushed at us has been fucked up statistical trajectory sheets.
Here are some events that would speed up the demise of the CACA Cult:
1. A cooling blip that restores the on-balance Pause and even turns into a cooling trend that reverses the warming trend.
2. Undeniably poor performance of renewables in pioneer countries and provinces. (E.g., short lifespans, high costs, outages, other side-effects, fuller accounting of externalities.)
3. Global financial crisis 2.0.
4. A continuing drip of skeptical papers (e.g., the publication of Monckton’s upcoming IPCC-error exposé and Watts’s comparison of the US climate reference network’s temperatures to those used by GISS).
5. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord. This will shake loose people who thought the alarmist bandwagon was irresistible. And it will force the broadcast media into hosting debates on the topic.
6. Fizzle of the Tesla and other all-electric cars.
Or it might provoke even more panicked arm waving and mouth frothing by the MSM in cahoots with the Green deindustrial-academic-government complex.
They ignore *all* cooling blips claiming they’re spurious like they somehow couldn’t have a natural cause.
Taking away Prince Albert’s poster kids will help sink the sc@m.
Growing Arctic sea ice over the next 30 years would help, but by then, the economic and health damage will be done.
7. Real scientists in the anti-AGW camp get $100,000,000 legacy from benefactor, carry out some repeatable experiments and disprove something which kills AGW off. Actually £10 million will probably do and it shouldn’t take more than 2 years to finish the work.
Indeed it’ll be a long time before the climate system is understood well enough to have a reasonable degree of certainty either way. But meanwhile, whether ACO2 turns out to be good bad or indifferent, it can be shown *now*, and without reference to physical climate data, that the certainty of imminent climate catastrophe is not based upon evidence but is the result of a powerful *cultural* consensus. Given that this narrative of certainty is what drives main policy, showing that it is wrong (certainty touted by strong cultural narratives is always wrong, being derived from a social process which necessarily cannot be true) ought to arrest that policy, irrespective of what the as yet undetermined truth will turn out to be. For some insight, see the easy-to-follow 3 step demonstration of which side in the climate debate is evidentially defined, and which is culturally defined:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/who-is-who-aux-file.docx
…added to which we can then map the social characteristics associated with CAGW onto the expected features of an emergent culture, extremely well:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/20/climate-culture/
correction: being derived from a social process which necessarily cannot produce truth
Point 10 should be quite interesting to watch.
We agree that Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord would be a very good start!
And it gives plenty of opportunity for the other 6 countries to cut their carbon emissions even more to save the planet . They will be able to feel even more righteous and ensure the cuts happen. La-La-La-La
“Every great cause starts as a movement, becomes a business, and ultimately degenerates into a racket.” – Eric Hoffer
Models predict tropospheric hotspot, but hotspot not found where it’s predicted to be so models are wrong. What am I missing?
An awful lot of grant money.
Last year I reminded someone at work of the over-hype of the acid rain scare. He came some time back later and said that he had found out that it had been government action that had averted the acid rain problem. This despite the fact that we never installed the required SO2 scrubbers. We did eventually though close down several coal plants due to a directive based on the acid rain scare long after that scare was known to be thoroughly disproven by both experiment and reality.
That other bogey-man of the 80’s; ozone layer reduction from man-made aerosols, remarkably disappeared as a problem, even though we’d been told prior to the Montreal protocol that it was already too late to avoid widespread skin cancer. Meanwhile these replacement gases need re-replaced because they are potent greenhouse gases – a fact pointed out to the zealots at the time!
With the non-event of the millennium bug scare the folk paid handsomely to fix the systems, who had never stopped saying right up to zero hour that the billions being spent were still too little too late and that a catastrophe was inevitable regardless, are now telling us their sterling work clearly prevented any problem.
The projected new ice age from fossil fuel was prevented by the global warming from fossil fuels we are told. And there would be much more fossil fuel warming if it wasn’t being masked by the fossil fuel cooling. Numbers for the extent of this putative competing cooling & warming are unavailable – just the tiny difference between the two is known because magically it conforms exactly to what was observed. The large up and down shifts that seem to temporarily dominate the system are just natural ‘noise’. Why these natural cycles can force temperature over the short term but not the long term is only ever explained as ‘we don’t know the mechanisms’ – this despite huge evidence of actual long-term natural forcing. Any cooling event cannot of course be caused by CO2 except as a massive & sudden CO2 sink appearing from nowhere. This is why CO2 as climate driver is only half a hypothesis; ie the heating half.
Figueres and Obama have already now said that the ‘pause’ and ’emissions reduction’ respectively have been due to the money we spent on renewables. I daresay if a 2% man-made overburden of CO2 on the natural system can cause a problem then it’s equally logical to these clowns that a 2% reduction in fossil fuel power must have prevented it.
Ergo there will be never be any admission that they were wrong – they will just claim to have fixed it by spending those extra billions and the clueless, politically-correct journalists will swallow the BS once again, ready to move onto the next scare.
“With the non-event of the millennium bug….”
You obviously didn’t understand the problem.
The problem I understood very well. You I don’t.
Obama is wrong…The greatest threat to America and the world is not “Climate Change”….The greatest threat is “liberal ideology” !!
Never met an ideal liberal. Are they produced by CO2 too? Or is the case that the ideal liberals were described by Sheridan?
?????????
They have just stopped talking about the ozone hole. Problem solved. Obviously, there was no more money to be made pushing that lie.
I think the Climate Crisis will simply go away as soon as American $$$ stop flowing into that black hole. It is all about money. So, once the money stops, that crisis will go away.
What to expect to see is that as the AGW scare subsides, due to lack of money to fuel it, there will be the discovery of another crisis that needs billions if not trillions in govt dollars to fix. NOW!!
The REAL problem is our dishonest govt. The global warming scare is just a symptom of it.
“Once it has achieved the status of a paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place”.
Or in particular, for the current consensus on climate change, if the globe were to start cooling. This would invalidate AGW in the absence of an alternative candidate. It hasn’t. Like it or not, as long as the climate maintains or continues to warm, anthropogenic drivers should remain the focus of likely causes.
What seems to me to be the only place for scientific debate/skepticism is the climate’s sensitivity to anthropogenic drivers, both positive and negative.
This religion is so embedded in the green progressive dogma that it will never go away as their dogma is unfalsifyable. Not to mention it’s their leading attempt to bring global government under their control.
http://archbishopcranmer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Pope-Francis-Climate-Change.jpg
Pope Prius I.
Better than Pope Priapus, who was one of the Borgias IIRC.
Prof Lindzen on the possible future of CAGW:
“… Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Lysenkoism + Eugenics]:
Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large
number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives
meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the
planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint. There
may be a growing realization that this may not add all that
much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the
Wall Street Journal,
this has not been widely promulgated,
and people with no other source of meaning will defend
their religion with jihadist zeal …”.
http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf
dude … you stole second, third and home with two words … dangerous warming … unproven, falsified by observation and nonsense …
The public will give up interest in climate change before climate scientists and politicians do. They want the money too much to give it up easily. It won’t be until another gloom-and-doom theory gains popularity that they will finally move on and start demanding money to solve the new crisis.
…… this analysis really was excellent… I hope there will be more of the same subject,
and more precise AFTER the presented step 8….. I believe step 10 and 9 should be
interchanged…… I could add the following: The new hypothesis/theory, which will
replace AGW is already out, see: http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html.
The two parts, part 7: 550 AD-1600 AD and part 8:1600 AD-2050 AD will be available
this year. The part 8 paper will show the temperature drop development until 2024 AD,
which cannot be compensated by cheating the land.based temps upwards. The OCEAN temps already drop visibly, see a picture some comments earlier…..And they will drop een further. For this reason, from 2024 AD on, it will be obvious that all climate models ARE definitivly WRONG and therefore the Aitken-question still remains: Will AGW slowly peeter out or will it die suddenly in 2024 AD with a bang?
*Gloats*
I can’t wait for all the pseudoscience groupies I’ve butted heads with online to form a grovelling conga-queue to recant at my feet. Oh what fools we were, they’ll say.
For if The Don doesn’t believe The Science, they’ll say, it can’t *possibly* be as sound as we’ve been insisting for the last two decades.
Because that’s how True Believers work.
/facetious
My biggest fear is a natural cooling period that will be explained away as happening due to all of the world’s efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. This will make proving the CAGW impossible to disprove.
Not as long as atmospheric CO2 content keeps going up and fossil fuel use continues to increase as it has. Despite all the hoopla we’re using more fossil fuels than ever and will continue doing so for a long time…… maybe centuries.
But it will then be claimed that the reduction of the ACO2 that done did the cooling.
This is an excellent analysis of the life and times of a snake-oil salesman’s pitch to separate you from your money.
It will be followed by another crisis that can be avoided/cured by the application of said ‘well-proven’ snake-oil.
“Having persuaded the world to spend trillions of dollars on fighting man-made climate change” Why doesn’t some smart liberal out there who is well connected recognize that this theory is majorly flawed and also recognize that taking some of the trillions being spent could actual accomplish something real that would be useful for the poor of the world. Liberals are always saying not enough is done for these folks. Won’t it be best to cut their losses and spend some of that money where it will really do something positive rather than dragging this out for decades just to avoid the embarrassment .
While I generally agree with the article as far as the climate-industrial complex goes there is a lot of momentum, but the public and pragmatic politicians can change much faster and are.
Where I disagree with the article is the pessimism about a simple alternative theory of the role of planetary atmospheres. I think there are two complementary approaches that are quite simple enough that anyone who genuinely wants to can understand if only at an intuitive level. Together they form a complete alternative paradigm.
1: The first will be familiar to many readers here. Our atmosphere acts as a thermal buffer that cools the daytime surface and warms the surface at night. Because of the highly nonlinear nature of radiation (E = εσT^4), a reduction of, say, 1Kº in daytime temperature has a far greater effect on emitted IR than the same rise in nighttime temperature. The surface warms to restore balance between incoming solar energy and outgoing thermal radiation.
This effect is strong enough to account for our current surface temperatures without any ‘trapping’ of heat in the atmosphere. This is a simple calculation that many have verified. I have a visualisation model at brindabella.id.au/OCM/OCM.html.
2: The second effect has had little discussion. What does this ‘trapping’ of heat mean and how is it quantified? We know that the atmosphere is bathed in a sea of collision induced infrared photons which transport energy at the speed of light over short but significant distances – eventually infinite at TOA. The question becomes, what is the rate of transfer, or more specifically, how long does it take for heat to be transferred from the surface to space?
I have attempted to quantify this, and while the time is measured in hours, the heating that it causes is probably less than 1 Kº. A 1 m^2 column of air weighs 10 tonnes. For an intuitive handle, think of the effect of a 200 W light bulb heating the air in a gym.
Right or wrong, I will publish this on the web as soon as I’ve had some feedback from other suitably experienced physicists. In the meantime, the fundamental assumption of climate science that the ‘trapping’ causes the whole of the, erroneously estimated, 33 Kº rise from an Earth with no atmosphere is busted by the first effect. It is primarily up to them to quantify their assumption now that their ‘trapping’ has a competing explanation.
dai
Being optimistic, my guess is that global warming will eventually just end up ‘disappearing by dilution’. As the author notes, death-by-DDT also ran its course. It never really went away, but the audience always gets ear fatigue after a while. That’s why most voters no longer rank global warming twaddle anywhere in their lists of serious concerns. Greenpeace and friends will always be there, scaring people about chemicals, nuclear power, GMO, etc etc, but each scare has to compete for attention alongside all the other scares.
Unfortunately, attacking the basic energy sources for modern industrial civilization is certainly the most harmful scare they have come up with to date. So maybe we should focus on helping them find something else to fret about. Currently they quite like fussing about bits of plastic floating in the oceans and the plight of the bumble bee. Perhaps we should encourage this? It is a bit of an ethical dilemma to do so, but I certainly don’t want to encourage inflammatory alternative actions/words increasing the likelihood of the other things that rapidly put global warming concerns in proper perspective. I’m referring to the serious problems that get a horseman of the apocalypse named after them.
Well stated.
One thing that will kill the Religion of AGW dead is an Ice Age, Little or large.
I find Valentina Zharkova’s work persuasive because it resolves the issue of why climate correlates so well with the LENGTH of solar cycles (SC) rather than the amplitude.
Note Zharkova makes no claims about Little Ice Age onset but the parallels are close. And with SC23 and SC24 being so low compared to SC21 and SC22 we appear to have the Pause happening. Looking at the magnetic activity shown in the chart it seems to follow that the global temps (if there IS such a thing :D) is following the magnetic flux-driven solar cycles.
The correspondence with previous climatic events is also close, giving confidence in the future projections.
Near as I can figure, the one thing we HAVE to do is prevent idiots like Bill Gates et al from polluting atmosphere and ocean to reduce the solar input – THAT could turn a LIA into a full Ice Age.
More here: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689#f1
Don’t be silly. They will change their model to show that they predicted the Ice Age, and the Ice Age is anthropogenic.
Just came from a meeting with my graduating class of engineers. Their position?
Meh?
Got more important things to worry about.
My nephew is finishing a Masters degree in engineering at University of Wisconsin – Madison. I asked him what the current crop of engineering students et. al. thought about ‘man made global warming’. It isn’t a topic at all apparently, in classes or over beers at the local pubs.
You, sir, are an idiot.
Another whimper…. Seth Borenstein.
Scientists explain what will happen if Donald Trump pulls out of Paris climate change agreement
“The Earth will get dangerously warm even sooner if the U.S pulls out of pledge to cut carbon dioxide pollution.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/scientists-donald-trump-pull-out-paris-climate-change-agreement-a7759411.html
UK Royal Society in essence stated they want funding for 50 years even though the climate models are already known to predict nothing. If in a human lifetime they are not relevant, they are not relevant now.
Remember Y2K? I was a Y2K project manager for an Australian cola mine/ power station. The Earth di not come to an end. The fact that the problems had been solved long before 1995 didn’t influence the alarmists one bit.
The fact that nothing happened was then credited to all the expensive effort.
Lies. All lies.
Ian, you might be applying the wrong model. It has strong elements in common with apocalyptic religious episodes. Much of the language and conceptuallization is the same. We have the same emphasis on belief, and on action as testimony to belief.
One of these episodes what observed most closely by Festinger and his associates, and documented in ‘When Prophecy Fails’.
The striking difference from the science model scares is that the leadership backs off as they become nervous about the consequences of following a line which may not come true in the real world. Prudence leads them to try to dilute the predictions or even drop them, because they see what is coming.
But at the same time as the leadership backs off, the lay followers become more fanatical. Then, when discomfirmations inevitably happen, belief strengthens rather than weakens. Fanatical hostility to the unbelievers or apostates rises. The apocalypse fails to arrive, the believers stare at each other, but their faith increases.
The thing only dies out after a real crisis of being on the part of the lay activist adherents.
If this is the model we are following, every scientific study which disconfirms the likelihood of the climate apocalypse will lead to increased and more fanatical belief and greater anger and hostility towards the ‘denialists’. And more demands for action which has little or nothing to do with the supposed problem, but which will act as testimony of faith. For instance, turning off standby appliances. Or installing wind turbines!
It will get worse before it gets better, and it will get worse in proportion to the amount of refuting evidence.
Ian Aitken:
In your above essay you write
I agree.
And I also agree with your list of 11 points.
Indeed, soon after 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen I made the same points in many places including WUWT where I wrote about the anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) scare saying
The 11 itemised points in your essay agree with that view which the passing years since December 2009 have given me no reason to amend.
Richard
Well sorry actually the skeptics have ‘proved their case’.
The Satellite data shows that climate sensitivity is a third of what the models predict.
There is no Tropospheric hot spot and contrary to what a previous guest blogger stated, it DOES prove the models wrong as the mechanism upon which the hot spot is predicated underpins the whole Catastrophic, positive feedback-based Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.
Proxy evidence of CO2 shows a tenuous link where CO2 trails Temperature and sometimes diverges. It is demonstrably not a primary driver.
There is the logarithmic ‘saturation’ nature of CO2 leading to less and less forcing with each doubling.
ERBE satellite showed increased OLR with increased surface warming.
Then there’s the nonsense about tipping points and dangerous rises of 2 degrees or so with zero evidence to back up such statements.
The skeptics don’t deny that CO2 causes SOME warming, what they do claim is that the fear-mongering based on predicted net-positive amplification feedbacks is wrong and their case has been proved by the evidence.
First sentence: a legitimate question.
Second sentence: clearly – very clearly – no.
Third sentence: you couldn’t pack more lies into this opening statement than by adding that the climate crisis will be avoided thanks to the armies of vampires riding pink unicorns who will rescue us.
The truth is many of your questions and suggestions are actually valid, but they are already answered. There IS NO competing theory, because the only explanation for the data and the changes we observe is anthropogenic by use of carbon-based greenhouse gases. All your other ideas have full access to the public forum, and they have all been debunked. That’s why no one discusses then anymore. Yes, ideas get shut out, when they have been proven to be faulty. Like your cosmic ray flux theory; come on dude, do your research! That is one of the more testable alternative hypotheses out there, and none of its basic claims match the data that has been observed for decades.
Nonsense. All of the warming can be explained by ocean cycles which has never been debunked.
DrStrangepork:
You are misinformed. There are several explanations for the putative global warming since the start of the industrial revolution which have more supporting evidence than enhanced radiative forcing from increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
All the putative global warming since the start of the industrial revolution could be an effect of a a slight redistribution of ocean surface temperatures.
And observed changes to cloud cover have had much greater effect on radiative forcing than changes to greenhouse gas concentrations.
And… etc,
Richard
The truth is many of your questions and suggestions are actually valid, but they are already answered. There IS NO competing theory, because the only explanation for the data and the changes we observe is anthropogenic by use of carbon-based greenhouse gases. All your other ideas have full access to the public forum, and they have all been debunked. That’s why no one discusses then anymore. Yes, ideas get shut out, when they have been proven to be faulty. Like your cosmic ray flux theory; come on dude, do your research! That is one of the more testable alternative hypotheses out there, and none of its basic claims match the data that has been observed for decades.
All you deniers have to do to make your case legit is present evidence of any other explanation that better explains the observations than the accepted theory. Even if AGW is wrong – which it isn’t – you have nothing to better explain the data. And through history, those who chose to cling to conspiracy theories over researched science have almost never turned out to be right.
Dr Strangepork, you have completely misunderstood this thread. We are talking about cagw, not agw. Also, labelling people who disagree with you as deniers reveals that you have no understanding what sceptics are actually saying.
One possibility is already in “the literature” A Canadian scientist, Dr. Lui (sp?) argued that it is the removal from the atmosphere of Freon, etc. that has cause the recent warming. There are probably other peer-reviewed suggestions. For instance, attn was drawn here a few months ago to a study linking decreased windiness over the past 40 years to increased temperature.
“There IS NO competing theory, because the only explanation for the data and the changes we observe is anthropogenic by use of carbon-based greenhouse gases.”
What “changes we observe” are you talking about?
‘After (11), in the 2030s or 2040s perhaps, we may start to see many PhD theses being written by psychology graduates about the great global delusion of the catastrophic climate change …’. Let’s hope they don’t look it up on Wiki where they will find that it never existed.
What can I say? T. S. Eliot was ahead of his time!
Although climate science is very clear, we don’t need science to see that the earth is warming due to increasing the concentration of green house gasses. We can simply observe climate change by measuring sea level rise, reduced polar ice caps, and warmer temperatures. ExxonMobil has already admitted that they knew carbon emissions will lead to global warming. They’ve known since the 70s,but buried the evidence for profit. They lied, and pay off shills, like you, for profit. It’s really pathetic.
Your opinions are noted, Bill.
The other Bill, do you believe what you have just written or were you trying to make a joke?
This was an interesting editorial and the comments have been great to read. I do think Mr. Aitken is a bit optimistic about the end of the climate scare. In the US, the liberal side of the bench has totally bought into the scare. Ending it will not be easy. In addition, a new documentary of Al Gore is coming out in July, with the catchy title, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6322922/] Speaking truth to power gives one a heady rush of moral superiority, intensified with a frisson of fear for challenging said power. The trailer implies that it will explicitly unite the fight against climate change with the fight against Trump. This is powerful propaganda. In the US, this will likely push us back to stage 3.
Something else struck my eye. The Royal Society is planning a meeting on “hyperhtermals” or sudden warming events they do not understand. Among their hyperthermals are both today’s mild global warming and the Permo-Triassic extinction event.Now what kind of moron calling himself a climate scientist thinks there is a connection between today and the Permian? I submitted a comment which I repeat below:
******************************************************************************************************************
**So now five professors of the Royal Society want to include the anthropogenic warming of our climate as one of the hyperthermals – natural events where global temperature rapidly increased without any warning. That of course is absurd. Present day warming cannot possibly have anything in common with the Permo-Triassic extinction event, the most intense hypothermal. It is still shrouded in mystery because even its timing is not clear. It might have lasted 15 million years as some experts believe but then again it might have lasted only 200 thousand years as another group of experts think. It was the greatest extinction event in 500 million years for sure and to classify today’s hardly noticeable warming as in the same class with the Permian event would be a coup for global warming advocates. I must classify this claim as dirty politics because lately many predictions of the global warming advocates have failed to come true. *******************************************************************************************************
#globalwarming hysteria may very well end in a bang – with an asteroid impact or super volcano eruption that induces a mini ice age.
All these arguments, knowingly or (rather) not, point to the fact, that the public discussion is on global warming, rather than its foundation, the greenhouse theory. If there is a greenhouse effect, if it is caused by greenhouse gases, then increasing greenhouse gases will likely warm the planet. Very simple. And we are not going to solve this science by counting polar bears!
The largely untackled greenhouse theory however is build on nothing else but the claim Earth was a perfect black body when it comes to emissivity, with E = 1. And the only thing reducing E, to attain the observed temperature, were greenhouse gases.
It will take nothing more than challenging the E = 1 theory, and replace it with accurate data, to crush the foundation of global warming. As I can show, (ocean) water has an emissivty of only 0.84 (which drops emissions by about 60W/m2). Clouds furthermore have a massive warming effect in the 100W/m2 range.
Adding up both factors, Earths emissivty is dropped by roughly 160W/m2, or to about 0.58 – far less than E = 1. And it does not take a single GHG for that, rather GHGs are one big illusion.
Erich May 29, 2017 at 7:46 am
The largely untackled greenhouse theory however is build on nothing else but the claim Earth was a perfect black body when it comes to emissivity, with E = 1. And the only thing reducing E, to attain the observed temperature, were greenhouse gases.
It will take nothing more than challenging the E = 1 theory, and replace it with accurate data, to crush the foundation of global warming. As I can show, (ocean) water has an emissivty of only 0.84 (which drops emissions by about 60W/m2).
Good luck with that, the actual value is 0.98-0.99.
To be more accurate, it is 0.986, which is true for vertical emissivity. In a 3 dimensional world it is a way more complicated, and indeed it is only 0.84 for hemispheric emissivty. But it is great to see how you do not reflect on your wikipedia quotations.. 😉
Erich May 31, 2017 at 12:56 am
To be more accurate, it is 0.986, which is true for vertical emissivity.
Unwarranted precision there, too many variables unaccounted for.
In a 3 dimensional world it is a way more complicated, and indeed it is only 0.84 for hemispheric emissivty. But it is great to see how you do not reflect on your wikipedia quotations.. 😉
Total hemispheric emissivity is much higher that that, there are indeed difficulties in making the measurements at large angles due to wave effects (e.g. reflection and reabsorption).
Absent roughness effects isn’t the ocean surface a Lambertian radiator anyway?
Not sure what wikipedia quotations you are referring to, is that your source for your number?
Phil
These measurements resemble a Fresnel equation with n2 = 1.27. The rest is simple mathematics.
Lamberts cosine law does not apply here, also it can not be brought in line with the Fresnel equation, or the measuremts. Lambertian radiators are diffuse emittors with limited surface size. A reasonable example might be a TV screen. The amount of light received will then correspond to the viewing angle from vertikal. 1 at cos 0, 0.707 at cos 45, or 0 at cos 0, and so on.
Water however is exactly the opposite. That is not diffuse, but most of all, an allmost endless surface. So at an angle 45° reflectivity / absorptivity / emissivity are essentially the same as at 0° from vertikal.
I have done the calculations here..
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/viewthread.php?forum_id=6&thread_id=1342&getfile=20250
Correction: 0 at cos 90
Erich May 31, 2017 at 10:30 am
Phil
These measurements resemble a Fresnel equation with n2 = 1.27. The rest is simple mathematics.
Lamberts cosine law does not apply here, also it can not be brought in line with the Fresnel equation, or the measuremts. Lambertian radiators are diffuse emittors with limited surface size. A reasonable example might be a TV screen. The amount of light received will then correspond to the viewing angle from vertikal. 1 at cos 0, 0.707 at cos 45, or 0 at cos 0, and so on.
Water however is exactly the opposite. That is not diffuse, but most of all, an allmost endless surface. So at an angle 45° reflectivity / absorptivity / emissivity are essentially the same as at 0° from vertical.
The last time I saw you post on this subject you admitted to being ‘a noob’, nothing much changed since apparently. Remote sensing employs Lambertian surfaces in the radiance transfer equations observations, so it is applied in somewhat larger surfaces than TV screens.
Well I was a noob! But I am learning fast, and got the whole subject settled in less than three months. You can read it all here..
https://de.scribd.com/document/348761444/Its-the-Ocean-Stupid
You may subject to the fact that I am a genius, but I can not help you on that. With regard to making you understand what the Lambertian law is about, I did give you the necessary assistance. Obviously you have no clue and are proud over it. So, well, I can lead the horse to the water, but..
I have posted before.
Just talk about “ever changing climate” and the scientific corruption will gradually evaporate.
Do not mention ” climate change” in any other way.
The media are corrupt ( see Martin Armstrong blog)
this is not happening?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami
This is not happening?
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/bill.htm
http://e360.yale.edu/features/as_himalayan_glaciers_melt_two_towns_face_the_fallout
This is a NOT new nor a surprise….Brought to you by Shell:
Reading this opinion piece I am struck by sense of cognitive dissonance. The author wants to say climate change is unproven or not provable in the short term and looks to be incorrect anyway. This despite actual manifestations of climate change today and not in some far off lands, right here in the US. What happens when people in coastal communities cannot get 30 year mortgages or insurance?
The implications are of course global and the potential destabilization of populations and governments is not a joke or something for snarky comments. They have real human implications and will lead to the passing of countless souls that have built far more vulnerable livelihoods in places relying on meager resources like water from glacier run-off that will cease to exist. What then? They will simply perish on the land? No, they will become climate refugees akin to the phenomenon we are seeing now out of the middle east and Africa into Europe. How is that going?
Have a heart people. This is not a joke – it is deadly serious. The US military knows this and is making plans. They are not silly people.
It could be satire.
“This despite actual manifestations of climate change today and not in some far off lands, right here in the US. ”
Please describe the “actual manifestation of climate change today”. I’m assuming you mean human-caused climate change. If not, then never mind.
Dumb, Stupid, any other qualifiers you want to use in your articulate response.
So do tell, what is your belief for the the warming that is taking place?
You do not need a “belief” to understand the climate. Refer to rule #1 of the science methodology.
The Null Hypothesis.
Noid,
The military knows no such thing.
Flag and field grade officers salute and follow orders, or resign in protest and lose pension points.
The US military was ordered by its errant Commander-in-Chief to “combat climate change”, so its four stars followed orders. Now we have a less delusional, non-Socialist CinC, and the new order is to combat North Korea and ISIS rather than “climate change”.
so this is not happening?: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/
Noid,
That article is a pack of lies.
The DoD isn’t planning to combat “climate change”. It is planning to deal with the consequences of continuing coastal subsidence in the NE US, due to uplift of the Canadian Shield, as it rebounds from being depressed by the weight of ice.
The article perpetrator put in all the references to “climate change”. Urbanization and geology account for whatever flooding problems Norfolk might face, not “climate change”. The rate of seal level rise in VA has fallen recently. It was higher in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
Please study the subject rather than regurgitate CACA propaganda.
William,
A lot of us are in fact highly intelligent, if not “intellectual”, although there are lots of those, too. The current Defense Secretary Mattis is one. I dare say he has read a lot more books than you have. And thought about them. Schwartzkopf’s IQ was 170, although a less likeable person you’re unlikely ever to meet. I hope.
But, as I note above, under Obama we were ordered to go Green, so we did. Doesn’t mean we liked it.
philjourdan, the null hypothesis comes from statistical inference, not scientific methodology. For example, Newton did not have one.
When the “science” relies totally on statistical inference, it is rule #1 of the methodology.
David,
The null hypothesis and indeed modern statistical analysis were invented by biologist Ronald Fisher in order to create the “Modern Synthesis”, combining Mendelian inheritance with Darwinian evolution, ie natural selection, in much the same way that Newton invented his calculus in order to derive elliptical orbits from his theory of universal gravitation. Thus, it is very much a part of science.
Is it however a necessary part of the scientific method? I would argue yes. Practicing the method means 1) stating a falsifiable hypothesis, 2) testing it by experiment or observation to confirm it or show it false, and 3) being able to repeat this result. Sometimes it’s necessary to use statistics to decide whether your result is significant or not, despite what Rutherford allegedly famously said. But more fundamentally, IMO there is always an implied null hypothesis, if not rigorously stated.
Newton of course asserted that he didn’t make hypotheses. But in fact he did. The null hypothesis for universal gravitation is that it doesn’t exist or that his formula for the action of its force is wrong. The null is not that orbits are circular, but that the attractive force which causes apples to fall isn’t responsible for elliptical orbits and other motions of celestial bodies.
Copernicus’ null hypothesis was Church-approved geocentrism. He couldn’t reject the null, but did produce a testable alternative to it, which was eventually confirmed and now can be directly observed to be valid.
Before Fisher formally formulated the null hypothesis and put statistical analysis on a firm mathematical footing, the concept was implicit in the scientific method. JIMHO.
Chimp, the concept of “null hypothesis” did not exist until Fischer, Neyman and Pearson created it. Prior to that the only methodology science had was to confirm or reject a given hypothesis. You can spin it (re-write history) if you like, but you will not find “null hypothesis” in the literature prior to it’s use in statistical inference.
If your argument is that “since it did not exist in Newtons time, it is not valid”, you have a world of surprises coming to you. The whole “science” of Climate today is based upon statistical inference. Your proclamation just wiped out the science. Congratulations.
David,
It’s not spin to see the concept as implicit in the scientific method before its naming by Fisher.
Of course it didn’t exist in the literature before Fisher. “Falsificationism” didn’t exist before Popper (or at least the 20th century), yet it too is implicit in the scientific method.
Another good example Chimp, of scientific advances that have nothing to do with “null hypothesis.” Kekulé had a day dream that gave him insight into the ring shape of the benzene molecule.
Chimp, our thread here is about the null hypothesis, not falsification, please stay on topic.
Concepts in the scientific method which weren’t formally named until the 20th century are relevant to the discussion.
Pauling also dreamt the alpha-helix structure. But that’s not relevant.
Where the SM applies is when you go to test your hypothesis, whether you dreamt it or it came to you in the shower. My argument is that the concept of the null is implicit in the SM, just as is falsification, whether formally formulated or not.
Chimp, if you are going to talk about “implicit” stuff, you are going to have to twist yourself into a pretzel to explain how “intuition” and “lucky guesses” are part of the scientific method. A lot of brilliant insights lacking any connection to hypothesis advanced science. I guess the adage “I’m from Missouri” is a significant part of the scientific method also, right?
“intuition” and “lucky guesses” can formulate an hypothesis, but it still must be tested. We all know how you make gold out of lead. now show us the formula.
David,
Guessing is at the very heart of the scientific method. The guess might prove a profound insight or a total dud. But it’s the first step in the scientific method.
Hard to believe that you’ve never heard, seen or read Feynman’s lectures on the SM:
Newton’s guess was that the same force that caused an apple to fall caused the moon to orbit the earth.
philjourdan says: “The whole “science” of Climate today is based upon statistical inference. ”
..
..
Uh, no, Langley didn’t use statistical inference, he used measurements of the reflected light of the Moon. S-Arrhenius then did calculations. No “statistics” were used.
In your attempt at a rebuttal, you either ignored or overlooked a key qualifier.
The word “today”. When was the last time you saw Arrhenius?
Chimp, hindsight is 20/20. Technically, as good as Newton’s “guess” was, it was wrong. Gravity is not a “force” as Einstein’s “guess” showed us. You can use Newton’s laws today, because his “guess” was pretty accurate, but his “guess” was superseded by a better one. The concept of bent space-time is a more accurate description of gravity, but they still use Newton’s laws to launch satellites. Now, Einstein’s hypothesis (guess) did not falsify Newton’s, but replaced it, only because it was a better explanation of reality. To top it all off, nowhere in either of these renown scientists work is there any “null hypothesis.” So, here’s something you ought to do, go back in this thread, and examine philjourdan’s claim: ” rule #1 of the science methodology…….The Null Hypothesis.” See how wrong it is? Rule number 1 is “finding a good answer for the question WHY”
David,
That’s how science works. Kepler improved on Copernicus’ guess by showing that orbits are elliptical.
Einstein’s guess most certainly did falsify Newton’s guess about gravity. Newton thought that his force worked instantly. Einstein showed that gravity works at the speed of light, besides also introducing a new model based upon the curvature of spacetime by mass rather than upon forces.
It’s not hindsight. It’s foresight.
Thank you very much Chimp. Your last post just proves that the “null hypothesis” is not “rule #1”
philjourdan,,,, emphasizes the word “today” and ignores the word BASED. You see Philjourdan, the basis of climate science TODAY rests on the work done many years ago. You’d know that if you knew how science functions.
Sorry david, that is a whiff and a strike out. Climate science today is not based upon ancient history. The hokey stick is not about what Arrhenius did. Nor are the extrapolations purporting to show Sea Level rising, ice melting, and the planet on fire. It is based upon statistical inference of past trends that are questionable at best.
Note again, you deliberately mislead by omitting words from your weak explanation. I said nothing about science foundation. I said CLIMATE Science. What created it is irrelevant to the work being done today, unless you can find a paper showing that Arrhenius calculations are being recalculated.
Which you cannot.
So stick with your native language. You and Engarpia do not seem to be well versed in English.
>>
Chimp
May 31, 2017 at 12:02 pm
<<
What’s interesting in your Feynman video link is that Dr. Feynman starts out describing how to find a new law, then he calls the process a new theory, and finally makes reference to hypothesis. This is sloppy terminology. A hypothesis can lead to either a new theory or a new law. Notice he also says that you can’t prove a theory (or law)–only disprove it. It’s amazing how many people think that a law is a proven theory–which is totally bogus.
Jim
Excellent analysis.
If you want to know the future of CAGW, look no further than the other favorite causes of the left. The boosters of Communism are back, without any shame, to try to fool another generation. Leaving our children to fight a battle that was already won. Same will be endlessly true for CAGW. It will never go away.
I do believe in AGW. However, I do not believe in CAGW. That is a distinction with a big difference. Quite interesting that people are required to form a belief in the first place. The reason is that the science and observations are very subtle and non-obvious. Were AGW or CAGW blatantly obvious, belief in one or the other would not be necessary.
And on the AGW part, surely some of what we see is natural variation. Somewhere between 0% and 100% no doubt. And with all the politicking around the issue, it just serves to obfuscate matters, not clarify. I ‘know’ that with each “update” in data sets, the natural variation component is erased. Cooling the past, warming the present. Clearly, politics trumps science in this field.
“And on the AGW part, surely some of what we see is natural variation.”
There is no evidence that *any* of it is anything other than natural variation. There is nothing unprecedented about today’s temperatures, despite NASA/NOAA/IPCC lies (stop looking at those Hockey Stick charts). Claiming that some certain percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere’s temperature is caused by human-produced CO2 is just a guess. That’s all it is. We shouldn’t assume facts not in evidence.
I never used to give much thought to the manner in which my earthly remains will be dealt with. I mean, I just don’t care and why should I? I’ll be dead after all so it is hardly any concern of mine.
The climate h0ax has dramatically changed this lamentable laissez faire on my part into something akin to panic. I am now saving for a huge and prominent headstone upon which, in words even a climate nitwit could not fail to understand, there will be deeply engraved my absolute disclaimer that none of the madness had anything to do with me and that I fought it vigorously until my final breath.
I would not feel this way if there was a danger of anyone thinking I might have been associated in life with the Third Reich or the Clan or Khmer Rouge or any other unspeakably unpleasant ideological thing. Each of us – with the possible exception of the Pontiff if that’s your bag – is fallible after all but to think of being labelled as a climate alarmist for all eternity is somehow infinitely worse. To be forever lumped under the most stupid idea ever conceived of by the human “mind” is just too awful to contemplate.
Dont worry about it, some of the most brilliant minds lost a fortune on the Tulip craze. Nobody is going to care about a dead person, at the very best you might give someone a chuckle.
I never used to give much thought to the manner in which my earthly remains will be dealt with. I mean, I just don’t care and why should I? I’ll be dead after all so it is hardly any concern of mine.
The climate h0ax has dramatically changed this lamentable laissez faire on my part into something akin to panic. I am now saving for a huge and prominent headstone upon which, in words even a climate nitwit could not fail to understand, there will be deeply engraved my absolute disclaimer that none of the madness had anything to do with me and that I fought it vigorously until my final breath.
I would not feel this way if there was a danger of anyone thinking I might have been associated in life with the Third Reich or the Clan or Khmer Rouge or any other unspeakably unpleasant ideological thing. Each of us – with the possible exception of the Pontiff if that’s your bag – is fallible after all but to think of being labelled as a climate alarmist for all eternity is somehow infinitely worse. To be forever lumped under the most stupid idea ever conceived of by the human “mind” is just too awful to contemplate.
The Global Warming belief will take a century to disappear, even if we start having a violent change to cold, people will still blame it on CO2. Even today, some people will let their kids die instead of give them a transfusion, and some people believe there were 6 people with machine guns on the grassy knoll.
Re: Mayor of Venus
>> May 28, 2017 at 9:12 pm
>>
>> It is widely accepted…
Widely accepted, perhaps, but true? NOT!
The isothermal assumption is the result of misunderstanding the gas laws. Any planetary atmosphere violates two assumptions necessary for the theoretical formulation of the gas laws.
The gas laws apply to a gas enclosed in a fixed volume; not subject to any external force.
Every molecule of a real atmosphere is subjected to the unending external force of gravity (the particles do not travel in straight lines between collisions, but in parabolic trajectories), and atmospheres can (and do) expand or contract subject to gaining or loosing energy.
Every molecule rising looses kinetic energy; and falling gains kinetic energy. That, in Earths gravitaional field (and taking phase changes of water into account), is sufficient to account for the observed temperature gradient. We must always have (on average) higher temp and pressure at lower altitudes; lower temp and pressure at higher altitudes. At least until the atmosphere cools and contracts sufficiently to lay on the surface in liquid oceans of O2 and N2.
–dadgervais
Hear here!
How does it end? By all accounts you wake up one morning shivering and deduce that’s it, we’re headed for an ice age-
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/sydney-wakes-to-coldest-autumn-morning-in-18-years/ar-BBBE3Mp
“3) Journalists hyping the potential scare in order to drum up public alarm (and sell newspapers)
4) The public, unable to understand the science, over-reacting and clamoring for political action
5) Politicians, unable to understand the science, over-reacting and responding to public alarm by rushing in ill-considered policies to mitigate the perceived risks”
But that isn’t the way it happened with Global Warming.
It was a minor issue, with only a modicum of journalistic hype. A loony in America had tried to peddle the scare in Congress, but no-one in the real world pays any attention to Congress and its loonies. Public clamour simply did not exist.
Then a politician who was allegedly able to understand the science, Margaret Thatcher, started peddling the idea for her own purposes. Details here.
https://normanpilon.com/2016/06/06/global-warming-how-it-all-began-richard-courtney/
“6) Politicians increasing scientific funding in order to find more evidence in support of the scare in order to confirm the rightness of their policies”
And that certainly is what Thatcher did.
Alan – I am glad you brought out Kuhn and his “credible alternative” babble. I do not agree with him. If you can prove that the theory in question is built upon false science and lies the theory must go, regardless of whether your alternative is credible or even exists. If you can prove that witchcraft, for instance, is a lie the ptiests better dismantle their system of witchcraft trials regardless of whether an alternative exists. With climate science, several alternatives do exist. Let us start with their lies and then look at their false science. The lie I have in mind is falsified temperature records. In 2008 I was working on my book and noticed that the eighties and nineties were a hiatus period. I used these data in figure 15 in my book to demonstrate this. But incredibly, IPCC then decided to change that temperature segment, from 1979 to 1997, into a non-existent warming period. I protested but nothing happened, so I put a notice about it into the book. Now I have an official document from NASA proving that there was no warming then but that, too, is ignored and this false warming is still part of their official temperature record. Next, false science. It starts with James Hansen’s presentation tom the Senate in 1988. He said he had found a 100-year record of temperature increase and claimed that this proved (!) the existence of the greenhouse effect. He did submit a temperature record to the Congressional Record that day. I looked at it but that graph is not 100 percent warming as he says. His wordthat he had proved the existence of the greenhouse warming was then used to justify starting up the IPCC. He went on to expand his claim by warning us that using more fossil fuels will push the climate into a runaway greenhouse mode. Which will be hot enough to evaporate the oceans, he says. His solution: simply stop using fossil fuels. To convince us of this danger he said that this is exactly what happened to the planet Venus. He takes it seriously and has a fourteen-page chapter on the Venus syndrome in his book “Storms of my grandchildren.” What this proves is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Venus does have a very thick carbon dioxide atmosphere. It is opaque to solar radiation so that only the top layer can participate in greenhouse warming. The interior is extremely hot but not thanks to the greenhouse effect but to the operation of the gas laws. Surely, he must remember from thermodynamics the ideal gas law according to which the product of pressure and volume, divided by the gas constant, determines gas temperature. We are not dealing with an ideal gas but the product of pressure and temperature still determines the temperature. With ground level pressure of 90 bar and a thick atmosphere too it is no wonder that the ground level temperature is 467 degrees Celsius. As to oceans, Venus is a lot closer to the sun than the earth is and it is likely that solar heating just evaporated the water before it could form an ocean. An additional detail Hansen leaves out is that Venus has no plate tectonics. As a result, no heat can escape at plate boundaries as on earth and numerous volcanoes form. Eventually the buildup of internal heat breaks up the crust, its pieces sink into the interior, and an entirely new crust is formed every 300 to 500 million years. The scarcity of asteroid scars on present day crust is due to the crust having been recently formed. With it, we can say that Venus never had any oceans at all. Hence, his claim of a runaway greenhouse evaporating oceans on Venus is just nonsense. To take care of the runaway greenhouse effect on earth is simpler because we have observations. First, in his chapter on the Venus syndrome, he suggests that an examination of the Cenozoic era will prove his point. Specifically, it includes the PETM (Paleotherm-Eocene Thermal Maximium) he thinks has something to do with this runaway greenhouse effect. I agree that Cenozoic holds clues to the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect but I disagree that PETM has anything at all to do with greenhouse. The best way to look at this entire picture is to look at the geologic history of the entire Phanerozoic, as compiled by Dr. E. R. Cotese. I included this history as figure 30 in my book as well as in my Arctic warming paper. So, what does it show in Cenozoic? It shows global temperature rise from present day to the point where that PETM blip can be observed. After that blip is over, global temperature settles down to 22 degrees Celsius and stays that way, with occasional interruptions, for the next 400 million years. Carbon dioxide does not follow it, so this stable temperature platform has nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. This might have remained a mystery as it has been for many years except for an important paper by Willis Eschenbach [1]. He points out that on earth, ocean temperature is limited to 30 degrees Celsius or less. There is a regulatory process whose workings are not clear but whose results have been recorded by 700 thousand Argo buoys that Willis’s report is about. Control is so accurate that if temperature somewhere goes over the limit is it is immediately forced down again. The limit of 30 degrees maximum for the ocean temperature is not that far from 22 degrees for land areas for which the Cortese platform applies. It is highly likely that this stable global temperature limit reported by Cotese is in some way supported by or related to the ocean temperature limitation reported by Willis Eschenbach. And by the way, the existence of this temperature limit proves that the runaway greenhouse effect is impossible on earth. Which proves that using the runaway greenhouse as a threat to keep emissions down is false science. I have now proven that the global warming theory is built upon lies (falsified temperature) and upon false science (runaway greenhouse) and must be abandoned.
[1] Willis Eschenbach, “Argo and the Ocean Temperature Maximum” web site PWUWT (Watts Up With That), February 12, 2017
The anomalous behaviour of water near 30 C is likely to be related to the transient nanostructures that may extend over hundreds ao molecules. It seems that these disintegrate as water temperatures rise from 0 C to over 30 C.
From: Rønne, C. et.al., Investigation of the temperature dependence of dielectric relaxation in liquid water by THz reflection spectroscopy and molecular dynamics simulation, J. Chem. Phys. 107 (14), 8 October 1997
“The two lines intersect near 303 K. … It is interesting to note that 303 K has proven to be a special temperature in various studies of water. … Mizoguchi et al. have … observed a
kinklike behavior at ~303 K. In pressure dependent studies of the shear viscosity, water
behaves like an abnormal liquid below 303 K and the specific heat capacity of water, Cp,
has a minimum at 303 K. … adding all these observations together we obtain indication of
a changes in microscopic structure at ~303 K.”
From: Buchner R. et.al., The relaxation of water between 0 ºC and 35 ºC, Chemical Physics Letters 306, June 1999
They found pronounced dip in the thermal relaxation (time taken to dissipate energy) and the permittivity (ability to store electrical energy) at 30 C.
dai
So what do we have here? A valiant effort by dai davis to to mount a rear guard action against the observed existence of the 30 degree maximum temperature limit for oceans. Willis Eschenbach who reported this empirical fact did not specify any mode of action and this left an opening for someone to supply an explanation. Accordingly, dai davis takes advantage of this and trots out a panel of experts and their solutions. They are C. Ronne et al, (transient micro-structures), Mizuguchi et al. (shear viscosity) and R. Buchner et al. (dip in thermal relaxation and permittivity). Esoteric proposals but not solutions to anything. Problem is that the three “solutions” disagree with one another as well as with the original observations submitted bWillis Eschenbach. He had Argo buoys measuring the ocean depths for him. The flimsy and contradictory claims of Davis. will stand no chance against 700 thousand actual measurements of ocean temperature. My advice to you, davis and company, is to get used to the 30-degree limit. It might be well for you to also remember that the ocean will not boil at 30 degrees Celsius., just in case someone like Hansen should say that adding carbon dioxide to air will make the oceans coil.
While it looks hopeful that Trump has the galactic cajones to stand up to the global statist anti-reality cabal and end this with a relative bang , this has been a paradigm without foundation .
Both sides have accepted the falsehood that some spectral phenomenon causes the bottoms of atmospheres to be hotter than the equilibrium temperature calculated for their spectrum as seen from space . That is , both sides have tacitly or explicitly accepted the assertion , in particular , by James Hansen that Venus’s surface temperature 2.25 times that of a gray ball in its orbit is due to some spectral “greenhouse” effect .and that same effect is the cause for Earth’s surface being about 1.03 times the gray body temperature in our orbit . Thus the Catastrophic Al Gore Warming cult spreads fear of “tipping points” which would turn us into a baked ball like Venus .
Yet simple undergraduate computations show the quantitative absurdity that Venus’s surface temperature can be explained as a spectral effect — which is why no computable quantitative equation , nor experimental demonstration of the effect have ever been presented in a quarter century .
This paradigm may be unique in history ( one hopes ) in never having , in never having had , any quantitative theoretical or experimental foundation .
I will make a different prediction – at some point climate scientists, green organizations, the press, and politicians will declare, in a unified voice “We solved the problem, we saved the Earth, you’re welcome”. And they will dare anyone to contradict them. Goal posts will be moved to where they can get credit.
Think I’m wrong? Look at the ozone hole or Y2K Bug “crises” for instruction on how this will go.
And regarding Trump, I suspect he realizes that the Paris agreement is a farce – nobody who signed it intends to comply anyway. Why burn the political capital tearing it up, when it doesn’t matter? Even full compliance will make no difference – read the agreement. The whole thing was a con, put together to full the idiot greenies that we are “doing” something.
Let me tell you something – Europe WANTS him to tear it up. because if he does, they can do nothing, and blame him, as opposed to do nothing and get blamed.
I was at stages 8 and 9 about 15 years ago. There was simply no good evidence of global warming, outside of historical variation, nor ever likely to be. There was no null hypothesis. The extraneous variables were poorly defined and Ill considered. The entire subject was a superstitious mess built up with computer models that could not, and would not, make accurate predictions.
I thought the hysteria would all end in just a few years, but thanks to ample infusions of taxpayer dollars to those promoting it, along with the small vagaries of the climate itself, it still remains a public issue. It will take a mini ice age to put the issue to rest. Judging from the historical data, that seems like a greater likelihood than boiling oceans.
Arno Arrak:
You’ve inverted my intention which was to point to some of the experimental evidence that shows that something quite particular is happening in water at 30 C which could cause the observed sharp change in evaporation. Elsewhere I have listed other data and discussed how this might effect evaporation rates.
I can’t imagine what ‘company’ you refer to. I work alone and build my own perspectives. As a child I wondered why, on a hot day, puddles seemed to be the same moderate temperature while the ground nearby could be hot enough to sting bare feet. And I understand what makes the tops of waves coil.
Chill,
dai