NYT: We Should Trust Climate Scientists Because The Eclipse

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Daily Caller – The New York Times has provided one of the most inane reasons ever for why we should trust alarmist climate predictions.

Should You Trust Climate Science? Maybe the Eclipse Is a Clue

Justin Gillis
BY DEGREES AUG. 18, 2017

Eclipse mania will peak on Monday, when millions of Americans will upend their lives in response to a scientific prediction.

Friends of mine in Georgia plan to drive 70 miles to find the perfect spot on a South Carolina golf course to observe the solar eclipse. Many Americans will drive farther than that, or fly, to situate themselves in the “path of totality,” the strip of the country where the moon is predicted to blot out the sun entirely.

Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse. In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations. We tend to trust scientists.

For years now, atmospheric scientists have been handing us a set of predictions about the likely consequences of our emissions of industrial gases. These forecasts are critically important, because this group of experts sees grave risks to our civilization. And yet, when it comes to reacting to the warnings of climate science, we have done little.

The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier rainstorms. They told us heat waves would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass.

Considering this most basic test of a scientific theory, the test of prediction, climate science has established its validity.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/climate/should-you-trust-climate-science-maybe-the-eclipse-is-a-clue.html

I don’t ever recall hearing an astronomer claim that we should trust eclipse predictions because climate science is valid. But then, Astronomy enthusiasts probably don’t feel a burning need to cloak the failed predictions of their heroes with a shaky veneer of pan-scientific solidarity.

Advertisements

214 thoughts on “NYT: We Should Trust Climate Scientists Because The Eclipse

    • I know how to end global warming. Very simple. If someone says he’s a climate scientist, pounce on him and sew his mouth shut. That should cut his carbon contribution by BILLIONIS of cubic feet of twaddle and hot, CO2-loaded air.

      Hey, my shot of the eclipse was only possible because the clouds in my area finally parted and I got the moon halfway out of covering the sun. We only had a partial eclipse where I am, but of course, it had to be cloudy, just like the Farmers Almanac had predicted.

      • It’s even easier than that. Just dry up government funding of climate research. Everyone knows that government research of funding is the true cause.

  1. That is the sort of understanding of “science” an English Lit or Poli Sci or Women’s Studies major has, and they seem to be the people hired to write for the Grey Lady.

      • For years now, atmospheric scientists have been handing us a set of predictions about the likely consequences of our emissions of industrial gases.

        Spot the difference. Scientists who make falsifiable predictions about eclipses get it right. THAT is why people believe them.

        Those who predict Arctic will be “ice free by 2014” or Manhattan will be under 6ft of water and get it wrong we do not believe.

        we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations. We tend to trust scientists.

        yes , we USED TO TRUST scientists. We are now waking up from this idyllic Victorian image of science.

      • The problem is “climate science” is populated largely by liars and goofs, not scientists.

      • tw2017. are you suggesting that only people with “appropriate” qualifications should be allowed to comment on climate? who is to decide which qualification is “appropriate”?

        I prefer to judge the quality of the contribution on its merits, rather than to look at a persons first degree to judge.

      • “I prefer to judge the quality of the contribution on its merits,”

        So you agree that Mosh is nothing but the equivalent of a used car salesman.

        Well done.

      • tw, Mosh hasn’t made a comment here. Disagree with something he said, as I and others have at times, but this strikes me as a personal attack coming out of nowhere.
        Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way but that’s how it sounds.

    • I read that the Aztecs were able to predict eclipse. I’m certain the NYT would be ok if we adopted all the other science of the Aztecs, their eclipse-sophy proves all their other science is equally reliable. Of course, Aztec science on sustainability is a bit problematic.

    • What a sad, sad,sad reflection on ‘climate science’ and the saddest aspect of it is that it really is at least 97% accurate.

      Thankyou NYT, you know not what you have done. Lots of climate of socialist propaganda and nil scientific logic.

  2. I thought there must have been an article like this out there somewhere because the trolls at several of the news sites I read were using exactly that rationale as a general put-down for anyone they disagreed with. “How can you be such a science den–r but you believe in the eclipse…” was found in just about every board about the eclipse yesterday. Obviously the talking points went out somewhere. The fact that one is based on very long observation with no data manipulation required while the other is still at the state of epicycles and whirlygigs has absolutely nothing to do with it!

    • i saw a similar opinion letter to editor in the local paper.

      this “logical” attack on “deniers” must have been choreographed ahead of time between some of the echo chamber groups to get it into the papers the day following the eclipse.

    • Hey, don’t knock epicycles and whirlygigs, they generally made much more accurate predictions than climate science.

    • A friend of mine posted from Neil deGrasse Tyson on Aug 11th:
      “Odd. No one is in denial of America’s Aug 21 total solar eclipse. Like Climate Change, methods & tools of science predict it.”

      My response:
      “On the 21st the calculations based on proven math will be proven correct. It’s a little different than ‘my model what has never predicted anything correctly in the present nor the past says your HEMI is going to kill us all in 100 years'”

      • Even better- imagine Dr. Tyson, circa 1400 A.D.: “Odd. No one is in denial that the plague is caused by mortal sin. Like the flatness of earth, methods & tools of science confirm it.” Neil would have been a very enthusiastic inquisitor.

      • I wonder if Tyson is aware that the temperature can drop up to 28F during a solar eclipse according to Google. Has anyone checked to see if the rate of temperature drop has decreased as CO2 has risen? Yeah, I know. Time, temp and details of atmospheric condition. But it hasn’t!

      • He was on the Jim and Sam show on SiriusXM a few months back. The bits I listened to were funny, and he was engaging. I didn’t hear any discussion of climate change thank goodness.

        Then in the final few minutes, they brought up Bill Nye and mentioned that there was a portion of a past episode that Nye did on gender and genetics that has been deleted. Neil quickly went into “I don’t know anything about that so I don’t want to comment” territory, and after the situation was explained to him, he went into, “Well maybe the science has changed since then”…blah blah blah. “Scientist”…pfffft.

      • Proper comprehension of this issue actually depends on having a sufficiently high intelligence quotient. Neil de Grasse Tyson’s I.Q. isn’t that high, after all.

    • “because the trolls at several of the news sites I read”

      Good deduction, Owen.

      Posting on multiple discussion boards, I see a lot of comments that seem orchestrated. Given that there are a lot of underemployed post-high school people around nowadays, there is plenty of “person power” to provide the necessary labor force, either for free or at relatively low cost.

    • To my mind their science is more like a whimmy diddle than a whirligig. Stroke the data in one direction and you get things goin’ gee, stroke it in t’other direction and it turns haw. All you flatlanders can google ‘whimmy diddle’ if’n ya wonder whut it is. Whimmy diddles don’t accomplish much but they do amuse small children for hours.

  3. This person needs to take a course in logic. The statement reduces to: Some (many / most) scientific theories are valid; Global Warming is a scientific theory; therefore Global Warming is valid.

    • Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work from National Academy of Sciences

      Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

      Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
      Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
      Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
      Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

      Source – https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

      Not a Theory yet. They Skipped a Step somewhere, since the Hypothesis stage hasn’t been verified, tested or corroborated.

      • Yep. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hypothesis… A hypothesis that has been repeatedly falsified by the climate models.

        The funny thing is that the AGW hypothesis could be confirmed if they simply devised climate models which reflected a realistic climate sensitivity to CO2. Then they would at least have a functioning theory. They would simply have to sacrifice their “cash cow”… the climate change crisis.

      • Climate models cannot falsify the AGW hypothesis. Similarly, climate models cannot be used as evidence for the validity of the AGW hypothesis. All climate models are wrong, but some are more useful than others.

    • We had much smarter people determining eclipse events long before we had the non scientific catastrophic global alarmists. To make any connections shows absolute ignorance. Suggesting that skepticism about global warming indicates a disbelief about real science and physics is pure ignorance

    • Except that global warming isn’t even a theory. At best it’s a group if hypotheses without any possibility of falsification.

      Or to put it another way— it’s possibly right but probably rubbish. Time will tell.

      • My take would be it’s definitely rubbish with just a speck of a chance that they got it right by dumb luck.

  4. If there had been 20 years of predicting an eclipse in the US every year, but it never happened – would people still believe the predictions or the ‘scientists’ making them?

    If there had been 20 years predicting large temperature increases and the temperature showed no statistically significant increase – would people still believe the predictions or the ‘scientists’ making them ?

    QED

    • “If there had been 20 years predicting large temperature increases and the temperature showed no statistically significant increase –”
      Have you actually seen the temperatures recently? They have increased. All the temperature data sets show an increase.
      I am interested in why you think the temperature has not increased. Can you explain to me why you think this is the case? It is something of a mystery to me and I would welcome an explanation.

      • We have been through this many times before, I am surprised we have to do it again. You have to compare like with like- surface to surface and you have to be up to date. Your plot seems to end at 2014.
        Anyway, the claim was that temperatures had not risen. Can you show me a surface temperature data set that does not show rising temperatures?

      • 1. The point is made with the graph I provided.
        2. Do. Your. Own. Homework.

        How many times….

      • seaice1 is trying to pull the old switcheroo. Moving from man made CO2 warming to just warming.
        Nice try old chap but NO CIGAR!

      • “…the claim was that temperatures had not risen…”

        No seaice1, that was not the claim. The claim was there had been a 20 year period as such (ok, so it was over 19 yrs and less than 20 maybe?). The actual quote is below. You are either being deceitful or failing to comprehend a very simple statement.

        “…If there had been 20 years predicting large temperature increases and the temperature showed no statistically significant increase…”

      • “…you have to be up to date. Your plot seems to end at 2014…”

        It was never stated that the 20 year period was through present day. You have to be literate.

      • Seaice said, “Anyway, the claim was that temperatures had not risen.” But, this is the the claim he was responding to – “If there had been 20 years predicting large temperature increases and the temperature showed no statistically significant increase –”

      • A mythical scenario:-
        If Model A says it will be 1º warmer
        Model B says it will be 3º warmer
        The average says it will be 2º warmer
        And it turns out to be 1º warmer.
        Are the models then wrong?

        Why would an average be used as the projection to be falsified?

    • Jungle Jim

      Power of Darkness

      30min | Adventure | Episode aired 19 March 1956
      Season 1 | Episode 26

      Jungle Jim leads a party into the Himalayas to observe a solar eclipse. They stumble into a strange Tibetan kingdom ruled by a white man. Jim must effect their escape by trying to convince the superstitious natives that he can make the sun disappear.

      Director: Don McDougall (as Donald McDougall)
      Writers: Wells Root (teleplay), J. Benton Cheney (teleplay) | 1 more credit »
      Stars: Johnny Weissmuller, Martin Huston, Dean Fredericks | See full cast & crew »

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800578/

      If Jungle Jim was a climate scientist the superstitious natives would have cut their fracking heads off… And they probably wouldn’t have waited through 30 years of failed predictions of catastrophic warming.

  5. Funny article.
    “If the science were brand new, that might make sense, but climate scientists have been making predictions since the end of the 19th century. ”

    I trust scientists whose predictions come true. It shows that the theories they’re working from have predictive power.

    That hasn’t been climate “scientists” to date. The list of so called “correct” predictions….ha.

    • Note the writer does not say “correct predictions”. Those omissions are important to take note of.

      • “correct predictions” absolutely right. What if the moon eclipse only showed up sometimes, in some places, other times not. When the moon eclipse does not show up it then would take years to explain where it went. When scientist STILL could not find the moon would explain it was hiding behind Jupiter with no way to verify empirically. Finally to keep everyone’s interest, would next predict when moon did come back eclipses would more frequent than initially estimated.

  6. “In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations. We tend to trust scientists.”

    Um….MILLIONS of people independently verified the scientific calculations regarding the time and place of the eclipse.

    And MILLIONS of people are independently aware that the “scientific calculations” done by AGW climate scientists are UNTRUSTWORTHY.

    Newest Pew Research poll shows less than 1/3 of Americans tends to “trust” climate scientists.

  7. Perhaps the NY Times will need to send another one of their science editors to the fashion dept, as they did the last time one of them made a horrific blunder. This indescribably inane article ranks right up there.

  8. Should we mention that astronomers have been successful with good models and math, while “climate scientists” using rigged models have not been sucessful on predictions.

    • Maybe it was just a lucky guess that they got the path of the total eclipse right. Perhaps if the “climate scientists” keep guessing they may themselves get lucky yet.

      I got to thinking the other day, if climate models are so good why don’t they write similar models for roulette?
      That way the casinos would provide the funding for their efforts.

    • Greek astronomers knew that the Earth was spherical, that the Earth moved around the Sun, and had a pretty good figure for the diameter of the Earth. The people who designed the Antikythera mechanism likely knew all of that.

      And even then, the ability to predict eclipses was a millennium old at that point. Even the builders of Stonehenge knew that; that’s why they BUILT the thing, as an eclipse calculator.

      • Stonehenge was built in stages over thousands of years. Likely not by the same group of people.

  9. They don’t understand that celestial mechanics is an old and by now well known discipline. When it comes to climate we have barely begun to scratch the surface with it’s myriad of factors and parameters that might amplify each other sometimes and sometimes work at cross purpose. The House of Cards guy on twitter pointed to the fact that both used math as an argument as to why his claim was valid.

    I can change the value of a constant. The equation will still be mathematically correct but it may no longer correctly model the physical reality which he doesn’t seem to grasp.

    • OR, the thing you thought was a constant is just an abstraction of a partial differential that in “normal” environments is differentiating along a line and so can be approximated by a constant in MOST circumstances near the surface. As soon as those circumstances are not true, the “constant” can become a highly perturbable function nothing like constant in that region. Linearlity is a key assumption of most everything in climate science and very little of it actually is.

  10. The eclipse is a physical science phenomena.
    AGW climate scientists are a money grasping political phenomena.

  11. Unlike the Earth’s climate system, the trajectory of objects can be sufficiently characterized, modeled, and the results reproduced.

    • IOW, long-term eclipse-prediction is truly “basic physics,” long-term temperature-prediction is not.

  12. The way I see it is that the climate scientists haven’t predicted eclipses, astronomers have.

  13. I saw this same argument on another thread. It would have more meaning if I could see the equation for the global temperature in degrees C as a function of the concentration of carbon dioxide in units of parts per million and then a few test runs to prove it was true. Until I see that, I’m not impressed.

  14. The eclipse proves the sun controls the climate. I was at the top of Strawberry Mtn in Oregon and the temperature dropped 15-20 degrees when the eclipse occurred.

    • Yes. A bit more dramatic temp drop because the 10:19am time (Madras, OR) had not allowed significant day time heating of ground, plants, and air, I suspect.

      I was just north of Madras. Very ‘cool’ to see the solar aurora, prominences, and implied magnetic fields through binoculars during totality.

  15. With regard to astronomy, there are proven mathematical equations that are even beyond the point of theory all the way to law. If they couldn’t predict the eclipse accurately, it would be a crisis of competency.

  16. “The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier rainstorms. They told us heat waves would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass.”

    This is the best they have? The Arctic was already warming especially fast, so is not a prediction. Heavier rainstorms haven’t arrived, so is a failed prediction. Heat waves have not soared, so also a failed prediction. Where oceans were already rising, they have continued to rise at an unchanged rate. Where oceans were falling, they have continued falling at an unchanged rate. where oceans were not changing level, they have continued not changing their level. “Oceans rising” is a three-way prediction failure.

    For eclipse predictions to compare predicted eclipses would have to fail to happen, while successful eclipse “predictions” would be announced only after an eclipse was observed to be starting.

    SR

    • Didn’t they tell us most of those things after the data was in? It wasn’t a prediction, it was fitting the theory to what was happening. Until the melting sea ice, most seemed to believe the rate of warming would be even over the planet since CO2 concentration is said to be equal. Uneven warming is a problem. It was also claimed that “local” changes were not relevant, until the Arctic lost ice. Suddenly, local was the canary in the coal mine.

    • Actually, their initial predictions was that the arctic would NOT warm faster than the rest of the globe.

  17. Never seen a more inane illogical statement. Could equally have used Einstein relativy since GPS works. Or the germ theory infectious disease because antibiotics work. And so on.
    The problem with climate science is it doesn’t work. Huge discrepancy between CMIP5 and observations, per Christy congressional testimony 29 March. Huge discrepancy between modeled and observational sensitivity. Huge discrepancy between predicted and observed sea level rise. As for AGW cause and effect, except for the now mostly cooled 2015-16 El Nino blip, no warming this century, a period also comprising 35% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958.

    • Ever notice when Christy or other skeptic testify before Congress, the Dems send in only one attack dog armed with 97% and other silly claims. The rest of the Democrat members do not attend because they are afraid of any truth that destroys their religious like beliefs.
      They probably know that they are running and supporting a scam and don’t want to be exposed to science.

      • I’ve been blasting some numbnut on TreeHugger who is quoting the 97% meme, who then posted an infographic showing “consensus” among climate researchers, all of which are 93% or higher.

        I’ve pointed out that Oreskes 2004 and Cook et al. 2013 all begin with a false premise of assessing only those abstracts that begin with an endorsement of AGW and continue by asking the researchers whether humans are inducing human-caused AGW, and make an analogy that such loaded queries is akin to asking only those who think strawberry ice cream is the best flavor of ice cream whether or not strawberries are integral to making strawberry ice cream. All I get back is, “BUT THE CONSENSUS!! . . . .”

        They’re too thick to even understand where their logical reasoning has gone circular.

  18. The astronomers of ancient Babylon and China were able to predict eclipses (2000 BC even). Climate scientists don’t do observations like these astronomers did over centuries in order to understand. If anything, climate scientists just make up their “observations” and don’t want to actually understand. They just want the religion followed.

    • More to the point, the ancient Astrologers made accurate predictions of the positions of heavenly bodies, including eclipses. Does that “prove” that Astrology is a “settled science”?

  19. Mesopotamian “scientists” had eclipses figured out a couple of thousand of years ago but i don’t recall them fretting over climate change

  20. OK everyone, close up, science is done, completed, finished, good hustle guys, go home, don’t come in Monday, we were right about the Eclipse.

  21. ‘For years now, atmospheric scientists have been handing us a set of predictions’ and more often than not they been proved dead wrong , hence the need to take everything they say with at least a bucket full of salt .
    Of course they have ‘learned’ that making these ‘predictions ‘ for 50 or more in the future means not they are less likely to get it wrong merely less likely to be around to be asked why they got it wrong .

  22. When ancient Chinese astronomers mispredicted an eclipse, they were hanged. Need I say more.

      • Correction noted. So to keep from getting hanged for failing to predict an eclipse, it would be wise to predict an eclipse every day so one doesn’t sneak up on you. But people do get tired of continuously banging drums to keep away the dragon that never shows up…
        …unless they’re paid to bang the drums.
        Need I say more.

  23. Words fail. Gillis’s grasp of logic and understanding of science in general are equally bad, but his grasp of climate “science” is laughably absurd. I swear, these people make it up as they go along, and the NYT just keeps churning out this garbage. Amazing.

  24. When one realizes that the NWT articles predicting Hillary’s Victory are actually much more accurate than the 50 years of CAGW Predictions, one might begin to suspect these outrageous claims made by a Newspaper that has less validity than The National Inquirer!

  25. Over at Ace of Spades HQ (www.ace.nu.mu) they’re displaying a 1932 NYT article titled/subtitled,:

    “Eclipse to be Best until August 21, 2017. That on August 31 Offers the Last Chance for Adequate View until 85 Years Hence. Next One Visible in 1970.”

    IOW the prediction of eclipses has long been “settled science.”

    AGW? Not so much.

    • So in 1932 astronomers predicted the August 21, 2017 eclipse. In the 1970’s did climate “scientists” predict (project) that “the Arctic would warm especially fast…. to expect heavier rainstorms…. heat waves would soar.” They did not. They predicted (projected)…COLD! Astronomers haven’t changed their predictions, climate scientists have.

  26. Saw this as a meme yesterday, where they also equated climate skepticism with anti-vax. I couldn’t help wondering if anti-vaxxers were horribly offended by being lumped in with us “deniers”.

  27. The Mayan Priests (and other similar ancient observers) may have done the same thing,

    “I can know when the eclipse(s) will occur … I represent GOD … give me your tribute and bend to my will. It is difficult to be right all the time, as it is difficult to interpret the will of God, so forgive me my minor inconsistencies & understand that I am the Word of God (97% of the time).”

  28. If climate scientists did eclipse prediction, the timing and locations of eclipses would always be a surprise.

  29. “Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse. In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations.”

    But climate scientists don’t make predictions, they make “projections” or so I am told. And “projections” can be wrong, but still right. Did I get that correct?

    • That is exactly what I was thinking; Scientists make predictions of Solar Eclipses, but the people that study climate science make projections which don’t have to be correct, just scary.

  30. “The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier rainstorms. They told us heat waves would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass.”

    What an indictment of their own article, none of these of come to pass so by their own logic they should be “DENIERS”

      • It’s not that they are all stupid, it’s just that they think all of their readers are stupid.

        Amen, and amen. I’m tired of elites—political, economic, and educational—implying that the average Joe Q. Public is a moron incapable of understanding basic principles and that we should leave the important heavy lifting of policy in their hands. P.T. Barnum famously said, “A sucker is born every minute” but he didn’t make his patrons to the circus feel like they were suckers.

        Today’s elites do. Or more accurately, like morons. Their track record for effecting real change that benefits the masses, however, is pathetically dismal and all that really happens is a lot of good money being thrown at hacks who turn around and do the same to other cronyism hacks.

    • It isn’t that journalists are stupid.
      It’s just that soooo much of what they ‘know’ isn’t true!

  31. We wouldn’t be able to predict eclipses without modern science, so we should be grateful for all modern science. Er, what about the ancient Babylonians? http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/1.808116
    We wouldn’t know about the climate of the whole world without modern science …. Well, they may be at an early stage, and it looks like they’ve already taken some wrong turns.

  32. This NYT writer should check the 1960’s and 1970’s archives of his own newspaper. They would show her that CAGW was not even a twinkle in anyone’s eye back then, even though CO2 levels were rising. CAGW is a new hypothesis based more on the social sciences than the physical sciences.

    • ” They would show her that CAGW was not even a twinkle in anyone’s eye back then”
      Uninformed assertion. Have you looked at the scientific papers from back then? There were quite a few that were saying rising CO2 would lead to warming. In fact about 7:1 were predicting warming rather than cooling. Far from not being a twinkle in anyone’s eye it was very much a serious concern among scientists and warming was predicted even back then.
      Please, please do not be tempted to trot out some media stories or some old CIA report about coming ice age. That in no way confirms that warming was not “even a twinkling in anyone’s eye” back then. The evidence is clear that more scientists were concerned about warming than about cooling, whatever the media chose to report.

      • “There were quite a few that were saying rising CO2 would lead to warming.”

        They are still “saying” it… like parrots.

        Normal thinking people are still waiting for some actual proof !!

      • “Please, please do not be tempted to trot out some media stories or some old CIA report about coming ice age.”

        How about a peer reviewed paper by Schneider and Rasool?

        ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
        Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.

        Abstract.

        Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

        The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern . In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to have increased by 7 percent . During the same period, the aerosol content of the lower atmosphere may have been augmented by as much as 100 percent .

        How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere affected the climate of the globe? More importantly, is it possible that a continued increase in the CO2 and dust content of the atmosphere at the present rate will produce such large-scale effects on the global temperature that the process may run away, with the planet Earth eventually becoming as hot as Venus (700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?

        We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.

        However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!

        Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141

        Those results were based on a climate model developed by none other than James Hansen, incidentally.

      • “Please, please do not be tempted to trot out some media stories or some old CIA report about coming ice age.”

        ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
        Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.

        Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141

        Fool.

      • “Please, please do not be tempted to trot out some media stories or some old CIA report about coming ice age.”

        catweazle666

        We are constantly told that AGW and the GHE is based upon old and basic principles of physics and well settled science. Accordingly

        (i) Please identify what NASA, back in the 1970s did not understand about the physics of CO2 and what effect the radiative properties of CO2 would have on Earth’s atmosphere.

        (ii) Please also detail what new properties of CO2 have been discovered since 1970, when they were discovered, how they were discovered and the papers in which the new properties of CO2 were identified and explained

        The NASA paper may well have over estimated the effect of aerosols, and may well have under estimated the effect of the Clean Air Acts that had been put in place across the developed Western Nations. This may well have led them to infer that there would be further significant cooling, on top of the cooling seen in the Northern Hemisphere of around 0.5 to 0.7 degC between 1940 and early 1970s, but that is a different issue altogether and has no bearing upon their assessment of Climate Sensitivity to CO2

        I set out below the temperature profile of the Northern Hemisphere (National Academy of Science plot and Nation Centre for Atmospheric Research plot) for the period up to the mid 1970s. This profile was accepted by Phil Jones and Wigley in their 1980 paper, and also by James Hansen in his 1981 paper.

        Both Jones and Hansen considered that the Southern Hemisphere lacked historic data and was too spersely sampled to have much confidence in Southern Hemisphere temperatures. Indeed, in the Climategate emails, Phil Jones goes as far as saying that the Southern Hemisphere temperatures are largely made up. Factually he is right on that since there is so little spatial measurements and so little historical data.

        And

      • You know when someone might be trolling when they refer to a NASA (GISS) paper which was peer reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal as “some media stories or some old CIA report”

        The scientific paper referred to was neither a media story or a CIA report. We will know whether catweazle666 is doing something other than trolling if he declines to fully answer in detail the questions I have asked of him.

      • SORRY catweazle666, I did not properly review all the exchanges. I failed to appreciate that you had referred to the Schneider paper and this was in response to a comment by seaice1.

        Please accept my apologies.

        Perhaps science1 might like to consider the points that I raise in my comment of August 23, 2017 at 2:47 am.

      • richard verney August 23, 2017 at 3:01 am
        “Please accept my apologies.”

        No problem, Richard.

        I note however there is no response from seaice1…

  33. I always try to be moderate and understanding, and seeing both points of view, but this is pretty ridiculous. What does eclipses and climate even have in common? It’s like saying if “certain scientists have proven that sleep is good for you, then another, completely different group of scientists, who study completely different thing, are also right no matter what they claim.” That is ridiculous. Are they saying that “scientists” (vague term) are never wrong and we should uncritically worship everything some scientist say?

    Many scientists have been wrong in the past. They are not gods. They are humans and have flaws like everyone else. And of course, inconvenient fact is that some climate scientists support the skeptical point of view, but I guess they can’t be “real” scientists then. After all, “scientists” are a monotonous hive mind who are always right and never disagree.

    Disagreeing with skeptical point of view and explaining why is fine, but this kind of junk is just baffling.

    • There is a tendency – which climate scepticism unwittingly supports – to rubbish all science… for example, there is( believe it or not) an active flat earth movement out there on social media.

      Science and scientists are not perfect, but pointing every time something is less than crystal clear or theories change and yelling ‘see, they are all telling lies!’ is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      • There is a tendency – which AGW alarmism unwittingly supports – to worship and elevate anything said or published by anyone claiming to be an expert as actually SCIENTIFIC. for example, there is( believe it or not) a silence/kill/incarcerate anyone labeled a “denier” movement out there on social media.

        Science and scientists are not perfect, but pointing to everyone who dares to remind people of that, or who clarifies the difference between a hypothesis and a validated theory and yelling ‘see, they are all telling lies!’ is causing people to NOT trust their babies in your bathwater.

      • Pure Bovine Scatology!

        I have seen more science at skeptical sites than true believer ones. The true believer sites have articles that start out looking like science, but then take a left turn in Albuquerque into pure fantasy land complete with circular reasoning.

      • Griff

        thank you for your daft observation.

        The real problem is that there is no credible empirical evidence which demonstrates CO2 causes global warming.

        You know this. How can you support a ‘scientific’ concencus on something that has been studied for generations with the latest techniques and instruments but which no one has demonstrated?

        You maintain that 30 years is the minimum period climate can be assessed over. Yet after well in excess of 30 years no one has provided the empirical evidence required to support the lab studies.

        Isn’t it time you alarmists gave up and admitted you have no idea what you’re doing?

      • Griff – “… there is( believe it or not) an active flat earth movement out there on social media.”

        If they gather enough followers to form a consensus, you’ll believe it too, right?

      • The thing is, there never was a baby. There was a miscarriage long ago. The baby you reference does not exist. It was a fantasy, an illusion to ameliorate lost hope. You have been wasting bathwater for a long time, pretending that there is a baby.

        Quit hanging onto the dead baby.

      • “The thing is, there never was a baby”

        And in the case of climate science, the bathwater is more like a fetid oozing sewer.

      • Griff, that’s not funny at all. What you have correctly observed is that climate alarmism has done enormous damage to the good name of science. It will prevail but not until the charlatans have moved on to damage some other field of human endeavour.

        Give up your life of amateur comedian. Come join those who think rationally, if you can.

      • Griff,
        Your premise “There is a tendency – which climate scepticism unwittingly supports – to rubbish all science…” is pure, unadulterated rubbish! You state this stupidity on a web site provided, supported, and frequented by a veritable panoply of well educated minds from around the globe, yet you vomit unsupported AGW talking points with acolyte assurance. In foolishly doing so, you expose your zealotry, you diminish what little respect you may have garnered in these electronic auditoriums, and you disgrace your own integrity in the process.

      • “There is a tendency – which climate scepticism unwittingly supports – to rubbish all science…”

        No Skanky, that’s you paid CAGW evangelists with your totally discredited false religion.

        Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford for maliciously and mendaciously attempting to harm her scientific credibility.

      • “for example, there is( believe it or not) a silence/kill/incarcerate anyone labeled a “denier””

        Here you go”

        PROGRESSIVE PROFESSOR DEMANDS DEATH PENALTY FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS AND THE POPE
        “The police would start to identify the most influential Global Warming deniers who had not responded to the changed legal situation. These individuals would then be charged and brought to justice.”

        http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/170948/progressive-professor-demands-death-penalty-global-daniel-greenfield

      • “There is a tendency – which climate scepticism unwittingly supports – to rubbish all science…”

        Says the paid troll that gets all its “science” from the Guardian and the Puffington Host…

    • Many scientists have been wrong in the past. They are not gods. They are humans and have flaws like everyone else.

      This is why science isn’t ruled by consensus, no matter what Griff might say to the contrary.

  34. I’ve seem a lot of this lately, mostly in Facebook posts, mostly shared by good friends of mine that I don’t have the slightest desire to fall out with. “Climate change is real because gravity” – “Climate change is real because vaccines” – and now “Climate change is real because eclipses can be predicted”.

    It’s really hard to counter (and I don’t try!), because it’s hard to explain to a non-scientist;

    (a) the difference between predicting an eclipse using centuries-old celestial-mechanics equations that have been proved again and again, and just sticking a load of assumptions into a computer model and calling it science,

    and (b) that some scientists are less than entirely honest.

    I wonder how these memes always seem to suddenly appear, just when CAGW is looking most ropey…

  35. If “climate scientists” predicted eclipses…

    * They would look at 50 different models, each of which would give different tracks and times
    * They would then synthesize a consensus report
    * The IPCC would publish the SAER (Sixth Annual Eclipse Report), and claim a 97% consensus
    * Actual raw observational data of eclipses would be adjusted 75 years after the fact, to better fit the models

  36. I believe the Mayans could predict the eclipses too, without understanding the solar system. The climate scientists cannot predict the climate, although they claim to be able to understand it.

  37. Predicting eclipses 1000 years out is akin to predicting what the weather will be like ten minutes from now or what the climate will be like a year from now. Predicting eclipses 10 millions years out is akin to predicting the climate a century out — it can’t be done with any useful certainty.

    The solar system is chaotic (there are no closed solutions to the general n-body problem for n>2 even in Newtonian physics), but the climate is orders of magnitude more chaotic.

  38. Woooooooo………..Voodoo NYT!

    The Sun has disappeared, fall to your knees and pray it comes back folks.

    For all the reasons pointed out in this blog, the author of this utterly puerile piece of junk journalism ought to be running round in a loin cloth with a flint axe.

    Pea brained moron. And there will be petits pois brained morons who will read this and feel smugly content that they were right and that the world will end next year, again.

  39. scientists told us that the Arctic would [not] warm especially fast.
    They told us to expect heavier rainstorms.
    They told us heat waves would soar.
    They told us that the oceans would rise.

    All NONE of those things have come to pass.

    1.

    Arctic sea ice loss outpaced the predictions of an earlier generation of climate models (those stored in the CMIP3 archive), and the latest generation of models (CMIP5) still has difficulties. These are discussed in Stroeve, et al. (2012) ….

    the models simulate it so poorly that the authors had to conclude that, as far as we know, natural variability causes the bulk of the ice loss.

    (Source: Climate Models Fail, Bob Tisdale, p. 42)

    2.

    ‘There are constant claims that extreme {rainfall} events are becoming more frequent, but when you really dig down, you cannot see any trends even in long-term data. …. We would expect 12.5 extreme events in 250 years, if an extreme event is defined as one that exceeds the 95% confidence limits. The figure shows that there are seven such events above the upper limit and four below the lower, or 11 in total, where 12.5 had been expected. Given the slight skewness of the data and the approximation of normality, the difference is not significant.

    What is significant, however, is that there is no detectable change in the frequency of the extreme events. ….’ by Philip Lloyd

    (Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/28/trends-in-extreme-rainfall-events/ )

  40. Are they really that stupid? Probably not. But a very consistent trait of left wing journalists is that they fervently believe that everyone else is stupid. Armed with this assumption and a strong desire to shepherd the masses into a liberal Utopia, they are comfortable saying any nonsense at all, if they believe it will help the cause.

    If a climate realist made a similar argument, the author would have a field day tearing it apart in the NYT, then spend 4 paragraphs calling the realist stupid. (Of course, a realist has much more factual information and logic to work with, so would never actually use such feeble rationalizations.)

    The author is not an idiot. He is a zealot, preaching to the faithful. If he had good arguments to make, he would make them. He doesn’t.

  41. The old saying, “Red in the morning, sailor take warning, red at night, sailor’s delight” is more correct more often than “climate science” predictions and even many weather reports nowadays…

  42. In central and south America the “scientists” aka priests were excellent astronomers able to predict solar eclipses too, exactly when and where. Instead of teaching the people what it was they told them that the gods were angry and only big giving them money, power and making sacrifices would they be saved from the gods anger.

    Did anyone ever notice that Hansen’s scenario C happened anyway?

  43. I predict the sun will rise in the east and set in the west…

    When do I get my Nobel Prize?……..

    When will the NYT become a real newspaper?

  44. Yes, my liberal facebook friends have been passing the astrophysics = climate alarmism meme, and all I can do is laugh… for the many reasons stated above.

  45. The eclipse was a big deal locally here in Oregon, and I actually heard someone interviewed, saying how great it was to witness something that was bigger than all of us and wasn’t divisive or politicized.

    Of course, then here come the usual suspects.
    Not even one day.

  46. “It’s not that they are all stupid, it’s just that they think all of their readers are stupid.”
    Of course that is the same as saying they are really stupid. What I have realized over the years that journalist are not very smart. Journalism is mostly about journalist interviewing other journalists.
    We respect medical doctors because they are smart and worked hard to get there. There are many jobs that require people to be smart and there are consequences for not being smart enough to get the job done.
    Journalists, in general, are not very good at reporting on science. What is most apparent is the agenda of the journalist which most likely matches that of the editors. If you are lucky, an article may have enough facts to draw your own conclusion. With the internet, it is easy to do your own fact checking.
    What I conclude about American journalist that they are overwhelmingly anti-American, anti-military, anti-police, anti-business, and anti-nuclear.
    If fact checking finds the source of the article is the China Daily News, could it be communist propaganda? If the facts are wrong and derogatory about our country, why not cite the source as communist propaganda and explain how our country is doing it right?
    The reason is you are anti-American.

  47. The last couple sentences of this post are brilliant.

    Added point (apologies to anyone who’s already made it): The absence of eclipse denial seems to prove the precise opposite of what NYT says. It shows that a large segment of the population is *not* generally skeptical of or resistant to scientific predictions and conclusions. If some backwards/stubborn/anti-science segment of the population in fact existed, there *would* be eclipse denial. Instead, the skepticism exists as to the unique field of climate science, with regard to certain of its theories and predictions. This indicates that people are smart — they broadly accept the work of scientists, while remaining attuned to distinctions between scientific fields, and possible flaws or weakness in certain areas.

  48. MinutePhysics posted something similar (maybe even linked to the same article) to this on FB and I pointed out the logical problem with assuming that just because physicists are right about orbital mechanics, doesn’t make climate scientists them right about climate predictions. One is well known physics, the other is not even a falsifiable science, i.e., a false analogy. Some nitwit started arguing with me, finally resorting to pointing out his “qualifications.” Apparently he must be trusted because he has a master’s degree in physics and he once corrected a Nobel physicist (he also majored in psychology, though logic seems equally lost on the dullard). He told me that as a layperson, I should either get a PhD or just trust the experts. I didn’t feel it necessary to tell him I already did the PhD thing, and it doesn’t make a difference regarding the veracity of my claims.

  49. Remember, it is never about solar output, but CO2. Therefore during the eclipse, obviously CO2 went to 0 ppm to have such rapid cooling.

  50. The stupid thing about this argument is that one does not have to look at anything as exotic as an eclipse to make the point.

    The writer could simply have argued that scientists correctly predict the tides. They do this correctly day in day out, year in year out, over the entire coastal regions of the planet.

    This is what passes for science, these days, in the pseudo scientific world in which we now live. The Anthropocene is obviously the age of stupid.

    Perhaps next time we read a medical study, we should believe it because it is a sciency type of thing and scinecy guys are right because sciency guys can correctly predict the timing of the tides.

  51. Quote: The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier rainstorms. They told us heat waves would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass.

    Oh no. His logic is inescapable. Quick, sacrifice some virgins. And if that doesn’t work put up heaps of giant propellers to help birds fly backwards.

    The great divide really is between those who think rationally and those who can’t or won’t.

    • The arctic has warmed faster. There are heavier rainstorms -notably in the UK. There seem to be more intense heatwaves. Oceans are rising – 4 out of 4 -good job!

      • Griff, which bit of what I wrote do you not agree with? Are you a bit worried because you might become the subject of a sacrifice? Do you not think birds flying backwards is a good thing?

      • “There are heavier rainstorms -notably in the UK.”

        Yet another lie, you really should not misrepresent the climate/weather in the UK when there are contributors to the blog who are fully conversant with it.

        You simply prove how mendacious you are.

        Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford yet?

  52. Let’s see… Astronomers can accurately predict eclipses and “Climate Scientists” whose models can’t accurately predict anything… It’ still looks like comparing apples and oranges to me.

  53. Aren’t climate models simply “if” and “then” statements? If this condition exists and if these parameters are such then X could be the result. It seems whomever controls the conditions and the parameters controls the outcome. Flashback to high school 1968, living in an upscale wealthy town. We had access to a refrigerator sized computer that used ticker tape and a language called FOCAL. My project was to write a personality analyzer. The program asked for all sorts of information on a person’s traits but the only thing that mattered was the height, because I knew the height of the person I was going to embarrass. No matter what you entered for anything else, 5’10’ got a good description of one friend, 6’1″ was a good description of another but enter 5’9″ and the program spit out a very nasty, unfavorable description that was very much like my other friend. Teacher knew what I did but because it worked the way I wanted it to he gave me an A. Been skeptical of predictions from computer programs ever since.

    • Great story, Tom. I believe it is also exactly what is happening with the climate models. The only thing that matters is the amount of CO2 that gets added to the atmosphere and the assumption of climate sensitivity, which is part of the software. While the models are obviously more complex in the number and the kinds of calculations they perform, the complexity is no real factor in arriving at the desired outcome. When the models performs as designed, the modelers get an ‘A’, not because it models the atmosphere, but because it does what it was supposed to do; project catastrophic warming.

  54. ” even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations.”

    The article couldn’t be more self-contradictory.
    With respect to eclipses Solar and Lunar, the average citizen could take a few days to study the Saros cycles then refine their calculations with any of hundreds of both commercially and free available eclipse prediction software.

  55. Gillis’s logic applied to literature: “We should trust Ernest Hemingway because Shakespeare had a mother.” This guy should go on a one-way trip to the arctic with Bill Nye.

  56. Don’t blame the “journalists”. They are trying to make a living in a world where click-bait is the Emperor, and nobody has the time (and lets face it, the skills) to call them out on all their BS.

    In this case, they take a (relatively) easy science (predicting where the moon will be) and compare it to a very complicated science (trying to find out what the climate was like in the past) THEN figuring out what it will be in the future.

    Remember: people will brag about being innumerate where they would be shamed if they admitted they were illiterate.

  57. I’m predicting the sun will move in the sky today, not stay stationary, though it may appear to be stationary to the untrained observer. The sun will move towards the edge of the horizon, and eventually drop below the horizon. Once my scientific prediction has come to pass, don’t doubt any of my other scientific predictions.

  58. I think we should focus on the fact that ‘this is all they got!’ Instead of calling them stupid, we could express sympathy: “You know, I really feel sorry for these people who have to try and sell this global warming catastrophe. They really just don’t have any logic or facts to support their case. Could you imagine having to write such complete nonsense and try to pretend that it is correct and scholarly? I feel for them. I really do!”

    When we call them stupid, it is just more contentious rhetoric, and even Americans are getting tired of it. Everybody calls everybody else stupid. It no longer has any meaning, other than to identify the particular flag you are flying. But if we express sympathy for the poor people who have to be so illogical just to keep their jobs, we might actually start to get some people thinking.

    Just call me ‘optimist’!

  59. I’m not a scientist, but I fail to see the connection between the normal movements of the moon and the the predictions of climate change caused by human activity.
    Would some scientist please explain how those two discrete, unrelated activities are related?

    • One issue is that astrophysics is a pretty straightforward science. While chaos may reign here and there, now and then (usually due to an unknown or unforeseen force acting on an object), climate science deals with something that is semi-chaotic in nature. Not all of the factors are known, and are unlikely to be known any time soon, yet we have people who claim their wholly incomplete and inaccurate climate models are to be trusted. There are thousands, if not millions of factors that need to be taken into account, and even then many will be missing or ignored.

      I use models in my job, specifically SPICE, used to model electronic circuit behavior. While SPICE requires only a small fraction of the factors (around 12) as compared to those required in a climate model, those circuit factors being well known, the models still have inaccuracies due to things like circuit layouts that can affect the inductance or capacitance of a signal trace, each which can affect the performance of that circuit. When we actually build the circuit we’ll find that it does not behave exactly as the SPICE model predicted. In most cases the differences are small and can be compensated for. But in some cases the circuit doesn’t work as the model predicted because we missed something. If something as simple as a circuit model using about a dozen factors for each component has inaccuracies, than what about climate models that have hundreds or thousands of factors, some of which we still don’t understand?

  60. We trust Astronomers because they accurately predict the future. We do not trust Climate Scientists as they do not predict anything accurately. We have now woken up to the money -grabbing game of Climate scientists.

  61. “In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations.”

    Huh? Male Bovine Dejecta. The eclipse occurred in the places, at the times predicted, and you needed nothing other than a road map, a clock, and pair of eyes to verify the prediction.

    If you write stuff like this, people are going to think you are not very intelligent., And that is a prediction that can be verified by any sentient being.

  62. “… even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations.”
    And that is exactly the difference – it really doesn’t take much to obtain the raw, unadjusted numbers for the paths of the sun and moon, and do one’s own calculations with reasonable accuracy.
    When it comes to climate science, however, the raw numbers are difficult to find, while the adjusted numbers are splashed everywhere. The algorithms for those adjustments are similarly obscure and hard to find. When the adjusted numbers are plotted, they don’t present a coherent and consistent whole. There have been repeated incidents to cast doubt upon the validity of the numbers which are released (remember the GISS “October Surprise” of a few years ago?)

    So, which one do you trust, right?

  63. I caught that article.

    The comparison is like comparing 2 + 2 = 4 to a diffy Q equation.

    The eclipses can only happen when the Moon crosses over the ecliptic AND is in conjunction with the Sun. That is one of the easier things in astrophysics. An ephemeris and knowing the GMT are all that is needed.

    Compare that to the problems of reconstructing past climate and trying to project that forward, added to the problems of tree-ring’s Divergence problem, interpreting ice cores, etc. Every data point has a lot of wow in it. Every collection of such proxies is itself a wow – is it REALLY a proxy? (The Divergence problem puts the doubt into that.) Then add that they still have no reliable connecting mechanism – whether in physics or chemistry – by which humanity’s CO2 actually could do what they claim.

    The BIG ‘greenhouse gas’ – water vapor – has anyone ever gotten that understood yet?
    Compare these two pie charts: http://tiny.cc/4ofbny and http://tiny.cc/mpfbny – notice that one includes water vapor and one ignores its ~60% contribution to any possible greenhouse effect. My google hits show that 9 of the first 11 pie charts that come up ignore water vapor. That is the equivalent to saying that only 2 out of every 11 car crashes involve cars.

    Anthony’s paper rating the raw data vs the adjusted data is the kind of science that SHOULD make up half of the science about climate.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. – – – This has NEVER been demanded of climate scientists. They have gotten away with taking votes at one-sided conferences and one-sided online insider polls – polls that give votes to people who aren’t qualified, too.

    No, this NYT comparison is invalid. But I long since tired of trying to explain in scientific terms to lay people who accept journalist assertions as science. 9 out of 11 of such discussions ended up with them arguing, “Well, what if they are right?” Which argument – as science – is a zero.

    • Anthony’s paper rating the raw data vs the adjusted data is the kind of science that SHOULD make up half of the science about climate.

      Amen to that!
      Even if the numbers hadn’t been “adjusted” beyond recognition, they were questionable to begin with. Beyond the runway or parking lot the station was sited on, useless for any type of “Global” measurement.

  64. The twisted rationale and delusional thinking of Justin Gillis.

    “Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse. In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations. We tend to trust scientists.”

    Yes, astronomers, physicists, mathematicians both professional and amateurs have shared findings, checked each other’s analysis, analyzed, discussed every aspect of the findings; then verified their predictions by direct observations.

    Einstein’s theory of relativity was put to a severe observational test during an eclipse. Proof or disproof is based on observation, not predictions.

    For years now, atmospheric scientists have been handing us a set of predictions about the likely consequences of our emissions of industrial gases. These forecasts are critically important, because this group of experts sees grave risks to our civilization. And yet, when it comes to reacting to the warnings of climate science, we have done little.”

    Prediction after prediction coupled with consequences after consequences; non of which have verified any climate predictions.

    Following the lead of Einstein and other scientists; global warming is disproved.

    That climate scientists believe themselves above the scientific process and refuse to accept their failures to predict any portion of global warming; is convincing evidence that consensual climate scientists are frauds, equal to their predictions and false claims of consequences.

    The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier rainstorms. They told us heat waves would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass”

    N.B. Justin’s loose rephrasing of the actual prediction!

    Consensual climate scientists predicted that both poles would warm faster that the rest of the Earth.
    Only the Antarctic is not warming, let alone warming faster.

    Nor is it clear, thanks to a very short temperature record, that the Arctic is warming unnaturally.

    Heat waves have not increased, let alone soar.
    The oceans are not rising faster than last Century.
    None of those things have come to pass; yet delusional NYT snake oil salesmen like Justin do not mind lying to the public.
    CAGW advocates believe in noble cause corruption

  65. Who but the dog brained idiot Mark Zuckerberg would turn to Sheryl Sanberg for advice on dental surgery, or a performing a ‘Jewish Blow Job” let alone … spark plugs for a ’58 Chevy!

    Ha ha

  66. For years now, atmospheric scientists have been handing us a set of predictions about the likely consequences of our emissions of industrial gases. These forecasts are critically important, because this group of experts sees grave risks to our civilization. And yet, when it comes to reacting to the warnings of climate science, we have done little.

    The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier rainstorms. They told us heat waves would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass.

    I’m confused.
    We should trust Climate Seanctist because fossil fuels caused the eclipse?

  67. Yesterday’s eclipse gives a big insight into the effectiveness of so called GHGs.

    GHGs impede the passage of photons of LWIR emitted from the surface finding their way to TOA and thence being radiated to the void of space. They do not prevent that journey. GHGs are not a brick wall creating a barrier that cannot be crossed.

    Thus the issue is a simple one: Does the planet during the hours of darkness have sufficient time to shed all the energy that it received during the day? If there is not sufficient time during the hours of darkness to dissipate the energy received during the day, then temperatures will slowly rise.

    Under the eclipse, temperatures fell by up to 20 deg F, with 10 to 12 degF being typical. The planet was able to dissipate and get rid of a lot of heat in a very short period of time. After all, totality only lasted approx 2 1/2 minutes.

    The experience under the eclipse suggests that GHGs such as CO2 may change the temperature profile of the day, and put back slightly the timing of the coldest period of the 24 hour cycle. It may be that if there was no CO2, the coldest period would be say 02:30 hrs, but with CO2 it is 03:00. Perhaps with more CO2, it will become 03.20 hrs etc. But it would appear that there is no build up of temperature since the planet has sufficient time during the hours of darkness to get rid of all the heat generated during the hours of sunlight.

    Of course further study of eclipses is required since these provide a real opportunity to test the effectiveness of GHGs as operating in the real world condition of Earth’s atmosphere. (not laboratory conditions)

    • @ richard verney (Aug 23, 2017 at 2.26 am)…
      “Does the planet during the hours of darkness have sufficient time to shed all the energy that it received during the day?”

      As far as I can tell, our planet will never have “hours of darkness” — minutes, maybe, during the occasional solar eclipse, and even then, total darkness is severely localized.

      Aside from that, it does appear that our planet has, for quite some time, been able to sufficiently dissipate heat from the side not facing the Sun to maintain a semblance of seasonal equilibrium.

  68. ‘Climate scientists’ would be just as hard pressed to explain the Saros as they would be to derive the adiabatic lapse rate.

  69. If the calculations for the path of the total eclipse were as accurate as the models for global warming the eclipse could have been seen anywhere from Paris to Tokyo and everywhere in between.

  70. SLIGHTLY different. I can know the exact day I will have my next partial eclipse. What I don’t know is what the weather will be on that day. Nobody knows where the temperature will finish this year, let alone years out and even then, someone will change the data after, cos it was full of “errors” and needed “improving”

    So, a more apt comparison would be “Sometime in the future there will be an eclipse. We don’t know when. We don’t know where it will be visible. But it will happen. We will also change the date it happened several years after, because the day you saw it was error prone and doesn’t fit model expectations”

  71. Hurricanes will become more frequent and damaging……. Say once every 4400-5500 days or so.

  72. So, Nostradamus and the “lead” authors of the Bible were Scientists by this logic and should be trusted… because some things they say could be interpreted as becoming reality. I heard someone was cured of cancer because they held some special crystals and chanted… must’ve been a scientists that told them to do that too.

  73. Extraordinary that it can be announced in 2017 that: “Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse”.
    There’s very good reason to believe that the builders of Stonehenge knew about Eclipse prediction – see “On Stonehenge, Hoyle, Sir Fred, Heinemann 1977”.

Comments are closed.