Now available on Amazon: 'Climate Change: The Facts 2017'

Climate Change: The Facts 2017 contains 22 essays by internationally-renowned experts and commentators, including Dr Bjorn Lomborg, Dr Matt Ridley, Professor Peter Ridd, Dr Willie Soon, Dr Ian Plimer, Dr Roy Spencer, and literary giant Clive James. Anthony Watts also has a chapter.

The volume is edited by Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. Fourteen of the contributors currently hold or have held positions at a university or a scientific research organisation.

Dr Jennifer Marohasy said, “Climate Change: The Facts 2017 presents the case for climate change policies to be based on scientific evidence and it reveals how many of the potential policy responses to climate change are often wildly disproportionate compared to their potential cost.”

“However, our understanding of how the climate operates is incomplete and it is critically important to challenge the view that the planet is facing a global warming catastrophe.”

Climate Change: The Facts 2017 addresses a range of issues including the science of climate change, the homogenisation and manipulation of temperature data, the economic and social impact of climate change policy proposals, and the way climate change is presented by the media and portrayed in popular culture,” said Dr Marohasy.

There are certain things best not discussed with neighbours over the fence, at barbeques and at gatherings of the extended family; these topics used to include sex and politics, but more recently climate change has become a sensitive issue and has, consequently, crept onto the best-to-avoid list. At the same time as climate change has assumed this status, it has become a topic more likely to be included in a church sermon. Indeed, while once considered the concern of scientific institutions, climate change is now increasingly incorporated into faith-based initiatives with even Pope Francis weighing in, issuing an encyclical on the subject as explained in chapter 16 by Paul Driessen.

There are those who believe Pope Francis, and admire another climate change exponent, Al Gore – who marketed An Inconvenient Truth with comment, ‘the fact of global warming is not in question’ and that ‘its consequences for the world we live in will be disastrous if left unchecked’. And then there are the die-hard sceptics who dare to doubt. Many claim that these climate sceptics and their support base have an undue political influence, successfully thwarting attempts to implement necessary public policy change.

This book is a collection of chapters by so-called climate sceptics. Each writer was asked to write on an aspect of the topic in which they are considered to have some expertise. None of them deny that climate change is real, but instead, they point out how extremely complex the topic of Earth’s climate is, with some of the contributors also querying the, often generally accepted, solutions.

As you will see, this is not a book with just one message, except perhaps that there is a need for more scrutiny of the data, and of our own prejudices. This book’s reason for being is to give pause for thought, and to throw some alternative ideas and considerations into the mix.

Get your copy now at Amazon, both Kindle and Paperback are available:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 16, 2017 9:59 am

He huffed and he puffed and then everybody went on with their business of transitioning away from legacy energy systems.
I’ll be sure to order the book for a laugh!

Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 10:04 am

Transitioning away from legacy electricty grid to renewable caused blackouts in South Australia. Not a laighing matter.

Don B
Reply to  ristvan
September 17, 2017 4:10 pm

Currently #4 in Climatology; #1 is Roy Spencer’s takedown of Al Gore, An Inconvenient Deception.

Nigel in Santa Barbara
Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 10:10 am

I don’t think ‘legacy’ means what you think it means.

Another Doug
Reply to  Nigel in Santa Barbara
September 16, 2017 12:13 pm

I don’t think ‘transitioning’ means what he thinks it does, either.

Reply to  Nigel in Santa Barbara
September 16, 2017 3:03 pm

Legacy software is what you run your business on. It’s reliable and efficient; works day in, day out. But you’re embarrassed by it because you wouldn’t write it that way any more.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 10:24 am

Nothing can get through that thick wall of Climate Belief, or your Belief in “Green” energy, huh ben?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 18, 2017 3:34 am

hi bruce! I hope you’re having a nice day!

Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 11:41 am

Ask Germany how that’s working out for them…

Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 12:25 pm

… and benben lived in the 18th Century for the rest of his shortened life.

Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 1:27 pm

I’ll be sure to order the book for a laugh!….
….isn’t that name just precious….benbencomment image

Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 1:28 pm

Yeah, how’s your current electric bill, benben, compared to what it was before you ‘transitioned away from’ power supplied by a so-called legacy generating system??? Or do you even pay the bill yourself? No, I’d bet a set of sterling silver spoons that your mommy does that for you.

Reply to  Sara
September 16, 2017 5:35 pm

I can’t speak for Ben, but I get paid to export my solar energy back to the grid and earn a tidy little profit every quarter. But sure, keep on paying for yours.

old construction worker
Reply to  Sara
September 16, 2017 9:33 pm

“…tidy little profit every quarter.” Well I bet your little profit doesn’t come close to offset your tax burden for the green subsides

Writing Observer
Reply to  Sara
September 16, 2017 9:40 pm

@Bruce – considering that most of us have this little nag (called “conscience”) that tells us it is wrong to feather our own nests by raising the cost of an essential need for those less fortunate than ourselves – we pretty much will continue.
(I don’t expect you to get the above – considering that your cold heart doesn’t even realize that you really aren’t making a profit. Except for people named Musk, Steyer, Gore, etc.)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Sara
September 16, 2017 11:48 pm

“Bruce September 16, 2017 at 5:35 pm
I can’t speak for Ben, but I get paid to export my solar energy back to the grid and earn a tidy little profit every quarter. But sure, keep on paying for yours.”
In Australia? I am one energy paying customer who subsidises your little earner. Thanks mate!

Reply to  Sara
September 17, 2017 2:24 pm

You have the freedom to invest in solar too. You have just made the foolish decision not to. Or maybe is it because you don’t work hard enough to afford the outlay? That’s hardly my problem if you’ve made wrong choices in life or are too lazy to work hard enough to afford it. I’ll enjoy my tidy little earner thanks very much (and my free government sponsored health care and six weeks paid vacation).

Reply to  Sara
September 17, 2017 3:14 pm

if solar were giving profits to anyone not on the back of others (the poor), then the price of electricity would be going down. this is a fundamental failure to understand that the electricity generated by renewables simply cost more, and that economics will force the poor to pay more. electricity is not a luxury item.

Reply to  Sara
September 18, 2017 3:35 am

I changed my energy company to a 100% sustainable energy company, and my energy bill dropped 10%. My parents bought a set of solar panels 6 years ago and they’re now paid off, while still covering 1/3 of their electricity needs. Going quite well I’d say.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 2:44 pm

Here is the global trend showing the ‘spectacular’ penetration of ‘renewables’ (at the expense of nuclear):

Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 16, 2017 6:29 pm

The “EIA projects 28% increase in world energy use by 2040”
…”Through 2040, the IEO2017 projects increased world consumption of marketed energy from all fuel sources, except for coal demand, which is projected to remain essentially flat. Renewables are expected to be the fastest-growing energy source, with consumption increasing by an average 2.3% per year between 2015 and 2040. The world’s second fastest-growing source of energy is projected to be nuclear power, with consumption increasing by 1.5% per year over that period.”….
Most of the increase in nuclear power consumption is projected to occur in China.

Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 3:45 pm

The “enlighted” went back to failed 19th century energy from weather and pretended it was a move forward. Anyone who buys this should stay away from the edge of cliffs when photographing, since backward means forward to them.

John in Oz
Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 3:59 pm

I’m certain benben doesn’t understand what an energy system is.

Old England
Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 4:25 pm

Read it and weep for the death of you religion. Enjoy

Reply to  Old England
September 16, 2017 6:15 pm

Baiting and “harvesting” trolls is not sportsmanlike. But you knew that . . . 😉

Writing Observer
Reply to  Old England
September 16, 2017 9:56 pm

@Goldrider – I have an acquaintance who is a martial arts instructor. He asks every potential new student “Are you here to enter competitions, or are you here to learn how to deal with someone attacking you on the street? If it is for the first, you shall learn all of the rules. If it is for the second, I shall teach you how to make someone eat their reproductive equipment (not that phrase, but this is a family site…).”
“Greens,” who threaten the well being of myself and, more importantly, my descendants – are thugs on the street. Anything goes, there is no such thing as “sportsmanlike.”

Reply to  benben
September 16, 2017 8:27 pm

Me too! Thanks for the encouragement and recommendation!

Michael Keal
Reply to  benben
September 17, 2017 10:41 am

“.. everybody went on their business of transitioning away from legacy energy systems.”
benben please define ‘everybody’.
Quite a lot of ‘bodies’ in China just for starters and many other so-called developing nations. They’re still all furiously burning coal and using the cheap energy from doing so to grow their industrial economies. While we in the West watch ours being de-industrialised and shrunk through the application of expensive, intermittent ‘sustainable’ energy sources.
Does Chinese carbon have magical properties that miraculously cause it not to cause global warming, even if it’s mined in the US?
Or do they perhaps know something many in the West apparently don’t, that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause significant global warming or, dare I say it, none at all!
And that the ‘sustainable’ energy sources we gullibly buy from them don’t work too well. (No surprise there.)
What say you we stick with our ‘legacy energy systems’ until such time as the Chinese abandon theirs?
Let’s wait for them to lead by example so we can follow.
Don’t hold your breath.
Clever the Chinese.

Reply to  Michael Keal
September 18, 2017 3:37 am

Meanwhile in the real world the chinese just installed a 100GW of solar and wind.

Reply to  benben
September 19, 2017 2:15 pm
September 16, 2017 10:11 am

Just bought the Kindle version. Thanks for the notification.

R Taylor
September 16, 2017 10:55 am

And nary a Koch in the list of donors.

September 16, 2017 11:00 am

benben September 16, 2017 at 9:59 am

He huffed and he puffed and then everybody went on with their business of transitioning away from legacy energy systems.

Ah, yes, the inexorable global transition away from perfectly functioning energy systems to intermittent, expensive energy systems … how’s that transition going for you, Ben?

And remember, this few pathetic percent only exists because of large per-kilowatt-hour subsidies of solar and wind. Without those, we’d be at zero wind and zero solar.

Writing Observer
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 16, 2017 10:02 pm

Now, Willis, let us not exaggerate. There are quite a few places where solar and/or wind are the best choices. In a rational system, their penetration therefore wouldn’t be at zero. Why it might even be as high as 400 parts per million…

Roger Knights
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 17, 2017 7:03 am

Further, most of the increase in renewables has been in harvesting the low-hanging fruit—i.e., in windy or sunny and unclouded locations, especially where low-cost acreage is available for “farms.”

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 17, 2017 8:47 am

We’re at the end of 2017 – why post a chart that only goes through 2012? The figure is 8% (excluding hydro), and in 2016 renewable energy represented 40% of new power generation capacity.

Reply to  Chris
September 17, 2017 5:36 pm

I’m curious too about more up to date numbers, but I doubt your 8% number, as I suspect you are talking about capacity. Remember, the graph shows production, not capacity. Renewables advocates love to talk about capacity, but neglect to mention that the solar/wind project will run on average at a fraction of that capacity.

Reply to  Chris
September 18, 2017 3:25 am

It says 8% electricity generation, not 8% of electricity generating capacity. The PDFs available at the link go into detail on the breakdown across solar, wind and other types.

South River Independent
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 17, 2017 11:48 am

Mr. Eschenbach, do not forget about mandates. Here in Maryland, the legislature passed a law requiring electricity providers to provide 25 percent from renewable sources. They also approved a wind farm off Ocean City. The public service commission approved a subsidy for the wind farm. I am pretty sure that the power companies purchase the excess solar power to meet their requirement for 25 percent renewables. In addition, somehow certificates come into play. I am not yet clear on how that works, but projections are that electric rates in MD are expected to increase by 25 percent.

September 16, 2017 11:03 am

This is a brilliant video on YouTube. The truth in all its unvarnished unpleasantness. Do watch, it is very good.

Richard Bell
Reply to  Vanessa
September 16, 2017 11:35 am

Sad to here about John Casey …… Wishing him well

Reply to  Richard Bell
September 16, 2017 5:30 pm

That snowbound photograph in the video is of Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, the morning after the February 2, 2011 blizzard. A Flex bus had jacknifed on the Drive and the driver could not get it to move, so it blocked traffic on that limited access road. In addition to the snow, gale force winds were blowing off of Lake Michigan, which was also throwing water onto the Outer Drive and because of the broken-down bus and the cars behind it, no rescue people could get to those drivers to get them out of there.
The Chicago Fire Department sent fire trucks to pick up people and get them to shelter, but convincing some of them to leave must have been like talking to a block of stone, because it took several hours to get them all out of their cars and off to warming shelters.
Then storm finally moved on, the day dawned clear and that drone shot of buried cars was all over the morning news. I watched the attempts at rescues on TV live news the night of the mess, and the next morning, that clogged, snowbound LSD was THE story of the month.
I was so glad I was retired when I saw that.

Reply to  Vanessa
September 16, 2017 2:22 pm

What Dr. Casey didn’t mention was that just ahead of the 2008 to 2010 solar minimum, a massive EMP was ejected by the Sun, and that after the Sun restarted its solar cycle in 2010, it did not switch magnetic poles the way it usually does. It was an 18-month period with zero sunspots. When it restarted, the sunspot count was very low and sometimes missing. Fewer sunspots = lower solar activity = less solar heat.
A very short while ago this month, there was another massive EMP. Keep an eye on the sunspot count this time.
Otherwise, to prepare for food shortages, stock your pantry; buy a freezer chest or two; learn to cook from scratch instead of using the microwave; don’t discuss such things with your neighbors. Let them yak instead.
Oh, the winter of February 2011! I have a lovely photo of global warming drifted right up against my storm door, 4.5 feet deep. I had to wait for a neighbor to dig me out. It was like cement. I expect more winters like that ahead of us.

Reply to  Vanessa
September 16, 2017 6:16 pm

Snowing in Montana today, 60 days early. Does Not Bode Well for warmunistas . . .

Mary Brown
Reply to  Goldrider
September 17, 2017 5:10 pm

Usually we get some snow on the high peaks at my place in late the snow Friday was a bit late for us.

Boff Doff
Reply to  Vanessa
September 17, 2017 2:51 am

AIUI the reason the IPCC doesn’t investigate or even mention potential factors such as the effect of the solar cycle is that its terms of reference include the limitation that it should examine the impact of human activity on climate change.
The effects of that restriction are and were obvious.

September 16, 2017 11:24 am

There are two problems I have with the Kindle version I bought. First, it has DRM controls. Second, the retail supplier (Amazon) may, possibly, be vulnerable to pressure from individuals and agencies who would much prefer that this document is not widely disseminated. It is currently relatively easy to remove the current restraints on the document and convert it to a pdf document which you, and no one else, controls.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Martin Clark
September 16, 2017 12:28 pm

Amazon has already been caught deleting “one star” (negative) reviews from Hillary’s new book.

Reply to  Martin Clark
September 16, 2017 12:30 pm

You can bypass Amazon’s digital rights. All the ebooks I want on my Kobo reader are there, including this one. You need to switch off Amazon’s auto-update. Uninstall it. Install the previous Amazon reader version. Use Calibre to convert the format to another ebook type. Calibre will even make a pdf for you!

Reply to  Martin Clark
September 16, 2017 2:23 pm

Switch to print books. They last longer and don’t depend on batteries or charged-up electronics to be available.

Reply to  Sara
September 16, 2017 3:47 pm

Agreed, Sara. I go with print books whenever they are available.

Reply to  Sara
September 16, 2017 4:46 pm

Sara and Sheri, repectfully disagree. Have three places. All three are stuffed full with no room for more paper books. Was forced to switch to ebooks with my own first, Gaia’s Limits, after giving hundreds of treasured books away in Chicago and Florida to make room for more new ones before. Was once B&Ns best customer, readng maybe 5 books a week. Ran all their science shelves years ago. Publisher would have charged over $80 for a single cooy print on demand in color (necessary for graphics). Like expensive textbooks, not going anywhere. Ebook came out at $9.99 in full color, available in all ebook modes. And I get 60% rather than 10 % royalty.
I use both iBook and Kindle. In both, can hyperlink, bookmark, annotate margins, flag questionable passages with yellow post its– far better than my grad school days.
Suggest you get a good tablet (mine is a recent iPad), both apps, and try them out. I am never going back to paper. Just to electronic battery backup, since I can now still read in the dark during a nightime hurricane power failure.

Writing Observer
Reply to  Sara
September 16, 2017 10:10 pm

@ristvan – I’m with you, no more room for paper books (besides allergies to the dust that they generate and/or accumulate). I am slowly converting most of the library over to electronic versions.
There are ones that I will always keep in paper, though, despite the disadvantages – the critical ones that I’ll need if and when the power grid is destroyed (by natural CME disaster, enemies with nukes, or Greens with political cronies – doesn’t matter how).

September 16, 2017 11:37 am

I think the links would be better as _blank and where is the Book Review section at WUWT? Purchased it at Amazon, Thanks

September 16, 2017 11:41 am

“even Pope Francis weighing in, issuing an encyclical on the subject as explained in chapter 16 by Paul Driessen.”
Note quite. Climate change is only one part of the Encyclical and takes up less than a quarter of the content.
“There are those who believe Pope Francis..” Well, all that Pope Francis could come up with was that we should listen to ‘the scientists’ and then make the unsupported claim that whatever he wrote on the subject of climate change is supported by ‘the scientists’. So the only thing you can ‘believe’ is that what he says about ‘scientists’ is correct.
The doctrine of papal infallibility does not protect Popes from making such errors. Which is why a lot of Catholics, like myself, are not in the least inclined to pay much attention to what the Pope says on the subject of climate change. He’s no more an authority on the subject of climate change than my cat (if I had one). Some of us Catholics think that the Pope would be better concentrating on his day job rather than making statements which are plainly falsifiable. When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (making him the theological equivalent of a Prime Minister to the monarch) He didn’t mention anything to do with pronouncing on climate change. When Jesus told the Apostles to ‘teach all nations’ He had other things in mind than climate change.

September 16, 2017 12:26 pm

Should be some amusing ‘reviews’ by the poorly-educated alarmist crowd over there.

September 16, 2017 12:32 pm

Thanks for the book review. More of these please.

Margaret Smith
September 16, 2017 12:49 pm

Already have the book direct from Australia. An excellent read.

September 16, 2017 1:25 pm

From the paragraph at the opening: “…it is critically important to challenge the view that the planet is facing a global warming catastrophe.”
Umm, thank you for including this, but could you guys please remember to post a spew alert occasionally, when you include stuff like that? It’s simple kindness to remember that some of us poor souls might be in the midst of a large mug of iced tea.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Sara
September 16, 2017 1:53 pm

Hmm. Alarmism about Alarmism. Recursive. I like it.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Sara
September 16, 2017 6:14 pm

Is it carbon-neutral iced tea?
How did you offset the warming generated from the boiling and icing processes?

Reply to  Alan Ranger
September 17, 2017 6:51 am

No, I got it at Walmart and I do not offset anything with anything else, unless I’m balancing my checkbook – but that’s another story.
Per the Farmers Almanac and the Old Farmers Almanac, it appears that we may have a normal chilly fall and possibly a normal winter. Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are already seeing snow, which is really quite normal for that area at this time of year. The last reports I saw about the Chilean snowpack was that it is quite deep, which makes the ski bums VERY happy.
I flew from Chicago to Los Angeles in October 2000 and saw snow piled high in the Colorado Rockies. But there was a snow line, and at lower elevations, it hadn’t arrived. That was 18 years ago before all this utter nonsense started up. A normal fall and winter would make me very happy.
And I would not/will not offset anything while I am enjoying a hot mug of apple cider with a slice of lemon in it, or a cup of hot Swiss Miss Dark Chocolate cocoa with a slice of chocolate cake covered with cream cheese frosting, accompanied by a heap of Edy’s Grand Chocolate ice cream. I may, in fact, sneer at the noisy buggers whose untrammeled greed has caused this mess in what used to be weather science.

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 16, 2017 1:38 pm

There is one thing that the true believer will never accept: that his or her god does not exist.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
September 16, 2017 2:02 pm

To quote Max Planck, “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

September 16, 2017 2:00 pm

Just finished reading the whole thing (learned speed reading in high school, really helped in grad school and professionally). Very nicely done. Recommnded to all commenters here at WUWT Thanks to all contributors and especially editor Dr. Jenn Merohasy.
Only critique is that it is a bit heavy on temperature adjustments (e.g. delightful chapters on siting problems, Melbourne(UHI), Rutherglen, homogenization, surface versus sat,… but which I think are not even collectively a killer argument to the CAGW meme since there should be no debate it has been warming by something out of the LIA and we will never know ‘exactly’ how much due to coverage, lack of ocean, siting, and instrument calibration problems) and a bit light on heavy artillary blasting other key pillars of the warmunist belief like accelerating SLR or polar bears or specific, easily verifiable CMIP 5 model fails or renewable intermittency. OTH, the Koch brothers funding did not come through again, so this is a fine volunteer effort.
The Clive James final chapter 22 is a delight. I switched back to literary reading mode and savored every word. A Jonathan Swift for our times, a Bosworthian chronicle of Samuel Johnson equivalent. Missed nothing and deservingly verbally flayed the skin off many, many warmunists. Brilliant.

September 16, 2017 2:30 pm

Well, I’m convinced now. I was right when I told my mother in 1961, after a particularly harsh Midwestern winter, that we were heading for another ice age. Just glad I cook with gas and have a gas for heat and hot water, and that the power lines are buried.
Just a small piece of advice: if you’re on your way home in the middle of a bad snowstorm this winter, and you have 15 miles of open farmlands to drive through, with no possibility of getting help if you go off the main road, for Pete’s sake, stay ON the main road until the storm passes. Find a restaurant on the roadside that is open 24-hours a day and stay there until you see the county snow plow/salt trucks out doing their job.
Two people froze to death in their cars because they didn’t have enough sense to stay off that county road until the storm had passed, and there was a fast-food 24-hour restaurant at the crossroads where they turned onto the county road. And keep an emergency kit in your car.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Sara
September 16, 2017 3:05 pm

A most excellent adaptation recommendation.

September 16, 2017 3:04 pm

I didn’t see Pat Frank’s name among the contributors. A great pity if he was not among them. Dr. Frank did that spectacular dismantling of the so-called mathematics of the common climate models at the 34th Annual DDP meeting, July 10, 2016, Omaha, Nebraska, titled “No Certain Doom.” Video is here:

Alan Ranger
Reply to  techgm
September 16, 2017 6:29 pm

The question/answer session at the end is also most revealing. Especially when he states that his “dismantling” is no technical masterpiece, but rather the simple application of error propagation, which is drummed into every first year undergrad in any of the hard sciences or engineering. Astounding that “our top climate scientists” never learned or understood something so fundamental.

Roger Knights
Reply to  techgm
September 17, 2017 7:14 am

There ought to be a sequel, with other contributors, emphasising lightly covered or not-covered parts of this book.Some repetition would be OK.

September 16, 2017 3:45 pm

For me it is all quite simple. According to the paleoclimate record and the work that has been done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero.
The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is too full of holes to support. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect provided for by trace gasses with LWIR absorption bands in the Earth’s atmosphere. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, on Earth , or on any planet in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.
Even if mankind could somehow find a way to hault climate change in it’s tracks, the extreme weather events and sea level rise are part of the current climate and would continue to happen. If we could change the climate, we do not know what alternate climate to change it too.

Reply to  willhaas
September 16, 2017 5:36 pm

You have to ask what the hysterics in the crowd would do if they were suddenly transported back to the Carboniferous Era, when there was so much oxygen in the atmosphere that Protodonates (prehistoric dragonflies) had wingspans up to 2.5 feet. Bugs, as you probably know, don’t have lungs. They have stomata (breathing pores).
If only we could import some of those giant bugs to the present day. Do you think that would silence the CAGWers?

Reply to  Sara
September 16, 2017 7:43 pm

In terms of the paleoclimate record, we are experiencing a relatively low amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. Over eons, CO2 has been taken out of the atmosphere to form hydrocarbons and carbonate rocks, We really need to be puting CO2 back into the atmosphere. In the past CO2 levels have been more than 10 times what they are today and during that period there were both warm periods and ice ages. There is no real evidence that CO2 has ever affected climate. In terms of “heat trapping” it is the non-greenhouse gases that trap more heat energy than CO2 because the non-greenhouse gases are such poor LWIR radiators to space. The primary means of heat transfer in the troposphere is conduction and convection and all molecules participate. If CO2 really affected climate one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

Reply to  Sara
September 17, 2017 6:25 am

What I notice, willhaas, is that if the humidity in my general area is low, the lack of water vapor in the air allows heat to radiate back into space and the nights are chillier than they would be normally. Water vapor is a major heat trapper.
I can and do track weather from the local weather stations, and the humidity level is was very low all summer, the result being that at night, the temperatures dropped into the 40s at times – not a joke – and my house was so cold I had to run the furnace to warm it up. This was in July and August. Now it seems to be picking up, partly due to those tropical storms, and the heat level is rising somewhat along with higher humidity.
I’ve recorded all of this for a long stretch of years now, and found that in talking to other people, most of them aren’t bothering with air conditioning any more. I haven’t used the A/C for at least five years now. I have fans to stir the air instead. If you do record weather readings, you have recorded facts to back up what you say.
N.B.: I made a mistake in how bugs breathe: I said ‘stomata’. That applies to plants. Bugs breathe through spiracles. My bad. Sorry about that!

Reply to  willhaas
September 17, 2017 3:24 pm

Will, Sara
You’re right about monster Carboniferous dragonflies and the Ordovician ice age during which atmospheric CO2 was in the thousands of ppm.
About extreme weather, warmist alarmists are as wrong as it is possible to be. It is cooler earth climate, not warmer, that is associated with more storms. This, as Javier has explained recently several times at this site and that of Judith Curry, is because in a colder climate phase the larger temperature gradient between equator and poles imparts more energy to the ocean and atmospheric circulation. Yet another very obvious and basic scientific mistake of the alarmists.

Wim Röst
Reply to  ren
September 18, 2017 2:08 pm

Ren, what could be the reason for the cold spot at 100Mb in the tropics? Much colder than the North Pole at the same date in September.

September 17, 2017 1:56 am

As the magnetic activity of the sun increases, the jet stream retracts to the north.

September 17, 2017 12:50 pm

The magnetic activity of the sun changes over long periods of time and is unpredictable.

Mary Brown
September 17, 2017 5:12 pm

“Dr Bjorn Lomborg, Dr Matt Ridley, Professor Peter Ridd, Dr Willie Soon, Dr Ian Plimer, Dr Roy Spencer, and literary giant Clive James. Anthony Watts”
All well known deniers who are paid by the Koch Brothers and they have all been debunked 🙂
(You never read the book) MOD
[Lady, I’ve never been paid ONE DIME by the Koch brothers, they don’t even know who I am! And like the other mod said, you didn’t bother to read the book, but instead prefer to take the easy route of regurgitating somebody’s wrongheaded opinion rather than forming your own. It makes you look lazy and stupid when you do that. – Anthony Watts]

Reply to  Mary Brown
September 17, 2017 11:32 pm

It’s not exactly a who’s who of intellectuals is it?

Reply to  Mary Brown
September 18, 2017 3:33 am

Haha, oh the irony of mr. Watts’s reply. I’ve spent quite some effort getting the WUWT crowd to go out and actually read a textbook on the topic. To no avail. But hey, if mr. Watts wants to build up some credits outside of his very small bubble:

Reply to  benben
September 18, 2017 6:44 am

There is no issue with the properties of CO2. Its ability to absorb and re-emitt long wave infrared is understood and accepted by skeptics. That issue is separate from the silly notion related to the tiny fraction of increasing CO2 proposed to be sourced from human activities being wholly responsible for all weather someone somewhere does not like.

Reply to  benben
September 18, 2017 8:05 am

Once again,another warmist embarrass themselves with a stupid Red Herring,since most skeptics have long ago embraced the basic CO2 warm forcing position.
It is clear YOU, Mary Brown and others have made up your mind about a book you never read,which as Anthony writes,
“you didn’t bother to read the book, but instead prefer to take the easy route of regurgitating somebody’s wrongheaded opinion rather than forming your own. It makes you look lazy and stupid when you do that.”
There are a few people here who comments who hold degrees in Chemistry and Physics, who are yet skeptical.
Stop being an ASS!

Reply to  benben
September 18, 2017 9:36 am

why pamela and tommy, if you’d have looked at the book you’d have known it’s about the complete chemistry and physics, including how such a tiny amount of CO2 leads to such significant effects.

Reply to  benben
September 18, 2017 10:05 am

I quote from a text on GCMs:
“Atmospheric Circulation Dynamics and General Circulation Models” by Masaki Satoh–

One of the most uncertain factors in the reliability of currently use general circulation models is the use of cumulus parametrization. Since the horizontal extent of cumulus convection is about 1 km., the effects of cumulus convection must be statistically treated in general circulation models with a horizontal resolution of about 100 km. However it is very difficult to appropriately parametrize all the statistical effects of cumulus convection, though many kinds of cumulus parametrization are being used in current models. . . . We expect the use of models with 10-km resolution or less will come within the range of our computer facilities. With such finer resolution models, the assumption of hydrostatic balance is no longer acceptable. We must switch governing equation of the general circulation models from hydrostatic primitive equations to non-hydrostatic equations. As for vertical resolution, we do not have a suitable measure of its appropriateness.

In other words, they are guessing and using the wrong equations, because the resolution of current GCMs is not fine enough. And they don;t even know what vertical resolution to use.

Reply to  benben
September 18, 2017 10:07 am

Just as I expected, you didn’t address the Red Herring charge,that you still haven’t read the book,still didn’t acknowledge the fact that skeptics for a long time already accepted the basic CO2 warm forcing position.
Why don’t you stop making a fool of yourself?

Reply to  benben
September 19, 2017 2:21 pm

“Why don’t you stop making a fool of yourself?”
What makes you think he has any choice, Tommy?

David Ball
September 18, 2017 2:50 pm

Very pleased to see Sallie Baliunas’s name on there.

September 18, 2017 4:03 pm

Al parecer hay echos innegables en el cambio climático como los impresionantes tornados que pasan por Estados unidos y Cuba

%d bloggers like this: