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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 @ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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”.