Green Confusion: Trump NASA Administrator Thinks Humans Contribute to Climate Change

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine is seen during a NASA town hall event, Thursday, May 17, 2018 at NASA Headquarters in Washington. Photo Credit: (NASA/Bill Ingalls)

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

“Denier” NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine has confused critics by suggesting that humans contribute to climate change “in a major way”.

New NASA Chief Bridenstine Says Humans Contribute to Climate Change ‘in a Major Way’

By Sarah Lewin, Space.com Associate Editor | May 19, 2018 07:24am ET

In a NASA town hall yesterday (May 17), NASA’s new administrator, Jim Bridenstine, said that he knows Earth’s climate is changing, and that humans contribute to it “in a major way,” also supporting NASA’s research into that important area. The statement is significant because Bridenstine has expressed doubt about human-caused climate change in the past, causing some to question his suitability to lead a fact-focused NASA.

In 2013, as an Oklahoma congressman, Bridenstine claimed there was no current trend toward global warming. More recently, such as in his NASA administrator confirmation hearings last November, he has acknowledged that human activity contributes to climate change. But he had stopped short of saying that humans are the phenomenon’s primary cause.

At the NASA employee town hall, Bridenstine described how his thinking had “evolved” on the topic and laid out his current beliefs.

“I don’t deny the consensus that the climate is changing; in fact, I fully believe and know that the climate is changing,” he said. “I also know that we, human beings, are contributing to it in a major way. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We’re putting it into the atmosphere in volumes that we haven’t seen, and that greenhouse gas is warming the planet.

“That is absolutely happening, and we are responsible for it,” he added. “NASA is the one agency on the face of the planet that has the most credibility to do the science necessary so that we can understand it better than ever before.”

“We need to make sure that NASA is continuing to do the science, and we need to make sure that the science is void and free from partisan or political kind of rhetoric,” he said. “We have guidance from an apolitical, nonpartisan National Academy of Science telling us what is important for humanity, and we’re going to follow it.”

Read more: https://www.space.com/40640-nasa-chief-bridenstine-climate-change.html

I think, a lot of people at WUWT think it is plausible that humans contribute to climate change in a “major way” – that low end IPCC climate sensitivity estimates are possible.

But there is a big difference between thinking we contribute to global warming, and thinking we face a global climate emergency.

The reason Bridenstine has surprised critics is that normally, any time someone criticises extreme climate claims, the critic is immediately caricatured as a “denier”. Alarmists stop listening to what they are saying.

In the case of Bridenstine they had no choice but to listen, because he is the new boss. But what Bridenstine said didn’t conform to their prejudice of what they thought he would say.

Who knows, just maybe the shock of discovering a “denier” doesn’t necessarily disagree with everything they say might prompt some alarmist climate scientists to re-evaluate their prejudices, to be more receptive to criticism and other points of view.

Update (EW): Video of Jim Bridenstine’s speech to NASA (h/t ATheoK). Jim’s climate comments start around +23 minutes.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
joelobryan

Maybe he’s playing the Left’s game on them.
Claim one thing in rhetoric, do the opposite in policy. That is what the Left does,

SAMURAI

Bridenstine has unfortunately been co-opted by the DC swamp…
All physics and empircal evidence show CO2 forcing has contributed just 0.3C out of the total 0.9C of beneficial warming recovery we’ve enjoyed since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.
A Grand Solar Minimum and the AMO/PDO 30-year cool cycles both kick in around 2021, which will cause global cooling.
In about 5 years, no discernible global warming trend will be observed for almost 30 years, and CAGW projections will exceed reality by >3 standard deviations for 30 years, which will finally put a stake through the heart of the biggest and most expensive Leftist sc@m in human history..
Who cares if Bridenstine has been corrupted by the system.

Rich Davis

Except we ought to wait and judge by actions rather than words. I still think it may be skillful navigation of the swamp, rather than diving into it.

Nylo

I remember predictions of global cooling being made 8 years ago, how did it go?

philincalifornia

“biggest and most expensive Leftist sc@m in human history.”
Not really – it’s a baby brother to “Socialism is really really good for poor people”

Lets see the proof. Lets see the testing that can be applied to the global environment. No where do the far left loonies factor the solar forcing function into any analysis on climate change or AGW.

There are opinions, calculations, and assumptions, and then there are proven scientific facts.
There is a worldwide shortage of the latter.
Regards

there are proven facts of math, logic and geometry…
science doesnt have proof. logic does. math does. geometry does.
Science has the “best” explanation at the time. not proof.
Thats why no science is truly settled.
However, there comes a point when science is accepted as “beyond doubt” this is a practical doubt
not a philosophical doubt

Alan Tomalty

That point wiil never happen with CO2. The atmosphere needs more of it NOT less

WXcycles

And there are various ‘purities’ of Christians, from born-in traditionalists, to werd-‘O-gawd zeal converts and literalists.
Some claim to be more Saintly than others.
Same applies to AGW believers, through to the CAGW peak-kook.
Some claim to be much more Saintly than others, the lukewarm.
One must ask, just what “climate-change” has any person alive ever seen or experinenced?
Zip.
I don’t even see what such people are self-declaring their ‘belief’ in, and committing themselves too?
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Instrumental-Temperatures-World-10-Regions-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/2018/05/03/its-here-a-1900-2010-instrumental-global-temperature-record-that-closely-aligns-with-paleo-proxy-data/
/Sci-Secular-Scoffer

“That point wiil never happen with CO2. The atmosphere needs more of it NOT less”
the atmosphere has no “needs”
sloppy thinking son.

Latitude

Less sloppy than coming up with all kinds of excuses trying to make the science fit

TA

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Instrumental-Temperatures-World-10-Regions-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg
There’s that 1930’s heat spike again. It shows up everywhere. Except in the Hockey Stick charts, which were created to make the 1930’s heat spike disappear (see Climategate). The Alarmists managed to make the Hockey Sticks official policy, but they didn’t make the 1930’s heat spike disappear entirely.

R. Shearer

The man who can’t or won’t use proper grammar and punctuation accuses another of “sloppy thinking.” That’s rich.
Telling, he says the “atmosphere has no needs.” Then one wonders how he can defend the concept of “carbon pollution” and the practice of using less accurate and precise words for the purpose of obfuscation.
His retort is less than sloppy.

Sheri

A point we are clearly NOT at with climate change and that should be reserved for actual physically provable things, not probabilistic models. Using “beyond a doubt” at this point just makes people look foolish and uneducated.

“WXcycles May 20, 2018 at 3:10 am
And there are various ‘purities’ of Christians, from born-in traditionalists, to werd-‘O-gawd zeal converts and literalists.
Some claim to be more Saintly than others…”

Great post! +100!

beng135

sloppy thinking son.
This from a serial drive-by replier?

And that point – in relation to climactic studies – has not been reached.

Michael Jankowski

Science has proof all of the time, Mosh. What an absurd statement. Do you really think we’re stuck on the “best explanation at the time” for what causes polio or how the human reproductive system works?

Craig

Science may not have proof, but it definitely has disproof which is why the current state of mainstream climate “science” is not science.

https://agfax.com/2018/04/11/kentucky-corn-dont-make-a-late-start-to-planting-even-worse/
This is just one of many articles on the LATE PLANTING OF GRAINS THIS YEAR DUE TO A LONG, COLD WINTER.
I would appreciate it if the global warming alarmists would once again try to explain how increasing atmospheric CO2, a minor greenhouse gas, can co-exist with global cooling, as it did from ~1945 to 1977, and as it may be again doing now.
Answer: They cannot, so they just invent warmist nonsense to deceive the imbeciles.
CO2 trends also lag temperature trends at all measured time scale. I further conclude that the future cannot cause the past. At most, CO2 has a small, insignificant impact on global temperature.
I conclude that global warming alarmism has been adequately disproved by these Earth-scale observations.
I further conclude, again based on observations, that there is NO EVIDENCE OF WILDER WEATHER EXTREMES, and in fact most extreme weather events have decreased in frequency and severity in recent decades.
The term “climate change” can mean anything, and climate has always changed in geologic history, so “climate change alarmism” is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, and is unscientific nonsense.
Given the data obtained over past decades, there is no basis for global warming alarmism, aka climate change alarmism. There is increasing evidence, based on the evidence, that these scares were not only false, they were fraudulent. These scams have become multi-trillion dollar industries – the most costly scams in human history.

John Harmsworth

AGW doesn’t allow it’s “sciece” to be questioned, thus proving its anti-science prejudices. To me, it resembles the Catholic Church of the Inquisition era. Burning non-believes and selling indulgences. A disgusting edifice!

At least the Church built some wonderful cathedrals while they were stoking the fires of global warming, by burning tens of thousands of innocents (probably the mentally ill – aka “heretics”).
See Cologne Cathedral:comment image
The Warmists have done nothing but do harm to humanity and the environment. The have supported scientific fraudsters and caused enormous harm by promoting harmful green energy schemes – scams that are not green and produce little useful energy.
It IS frustrating to see politicians make really foolish decisions about energy. Most politicians are far too uneducated to even opine on the subject, let alone formulate energy policy. For example, it was obvious from the start that hydrogen-as-fuel was a dead end, because of very low energy density. Corn ethanol is also a poor and destructive idea, as are most food-to-fuel schemes, which have contributed to excessive drawdown of the Ogalalla Aquifer in the USA and widespread rain-forest clear-cutting in the tropics. It was also obvious that grid-connected wind and solar power schemes were costly and ineffective, primarily due to intermittency.
In general, green energy policies have been a costly disaster for society, causing great environmental damage, increasing energy cost. reducing grid reliability and increasing winter mortality. This damage has been high in the developed world but even higher in the developing world, where green energy nonsense has denied struggling populations access to cheap, abundant energy systems.
Fossil fuels comprise about 85% of global primary energy, whereas green energy provides less than 2%, despite trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies. Imagine how much better the world’s poor would be if these vast sums had been spent intelligently on clean water, sanitation and efficient energy systems.

MarkW

Plants NEED more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Gary Pearse

True enough Moshe, but when you decide to send a rover to Mars and it arrives many months later with adequate fuel at the appointed time and
at the appointed place that you predicted it would, that pretty well shows your governing theory to be of a very high quality.
Conflating with a Mars mission the dodgy work serving a global governance political agenda isnt appropriate. Getting to Mars with such precision is worth the several hundred million to achieve -it even has huge tech spin-offs for society. A jerrybuilt theory of climate that costs trillions and there is no evidence there is (a) a problem to solve or that (b) the solution is even viable and sensible if there was such a problem is like sending off your Mars mission in a galvanized garbage can designed by a highschool science teacher with a swag on the fuel, navigation and the parachute gizmo.

Sunderlandsteve

So what part of co2 fits as the “best” explanation?

gnomish

so science is illogical, is it?
that explains much…lol

joelobryan

“However, there comes a point when science is accepted as “beyond doubt” this is a practical doubt.”
Yes, Steve. 400 years of Ptolemaic mathematics worked very well for planetarium electro-mechanical projectors, even to this day, to show the motion of stars and the planets.
Doesn’t mean the underlying structural model was correct.

paqyfelyc

I wish climate science could have enough accuracy to deserve this comparison with Ptolemaic astronomy. Obviously doesn’t.

“Doesn’t mean the underlying structural model was correct.”
There is no such thing as the “correct” underlying model.
The assumption you are working under is that you have a position OUTSIDE of human cognition from
which you can judge whether or not the model is isomorphic with reality.
you dont have such a view of things.
Cosnequently you are stuck with models. They are more or less useful. Not correct, useful.

bonbon

Kepler showed all the models available, Copernican,Ptolemaic,Tycho, ALL shared ONE common falacy – geometry. Universal gravity is OUTSIDE all geometries. Even Einstein’s spacetime is the result of something outside geometry, namely the stress-energy tensor.
Something OUTSIDE all the IPCC models is at work here , not a physical principle, rather a political Malthusian genocidal lurch, and money.

paqyfelyc

useful… or not.
Steven Mosher, you think “correct” means “equal to reality”. It doesn’t. It first means “coherent with itself and known facts”.
For instance a model that say “Atmosphere works like a glass lid over a greenhouse box: it prevents LWR out, and so it warms the surface” is not correct for a simple reason: this is not the way a greenhouse glass lid warms the surface. The very same reason that makes wrong the model “Steven Mosher is a cat; cats are mortal; Therefore Steven Mosher is mortal”.
Just like is incorrect a model that predict a hot spot that is simply NOT there. Or a model that predict a warming trend thant is NOT observed for two decades.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, you can always add ad hoc epicycles to correct an incorrect model (like: reason for the hot spot, or the warming trend, for not being there). This was done with ptolemaic astronomy, and is done with “global warming” right before your eyes. Only Occam objects.

Trebla

Joel Brian:
Since there is no absolute frame of reference, it is possible that the Ptolemaic system is in fact correct.

bonbon

Weird. All 3 fake models had an absolute geometric frame.

Tom in Florida

Steven Mosher May 20, 2018 at 4:12 am
“Consequently you are stuck with models. They are more or less useful. Not correct, useful.”
The problem is useful to whom and to what? To scientific understanding, good……to a political cause, bad, very bad.
So how is one to determine which it is? Looking at funding is one approach, looking at why the model exists is another. A double blind study would also be useful. But when it comes to climate models, everyone knows that using them for fearmongering is strictly political in nature designed to gather power into the hands of those who want to control everyone.

eyesonu

———> Steven Mosher
“….. Cosnequently you are stuck with models. They are more or less useful. Not correct, useful.”
—————
I agree with Steve on this one if I read it the way he meant it. The “climate” models are not correct but useful in the sense that they are wrong and do not represent observations of reality. That would suggest they show C02 is not a significant driver of earth’s temperature and are a waste of time in reference to the C02 narrative being stuffed down our throat. So in essence, the models show C02 causing global warming is a joke and time to move on.

Pat Frank

Good physical theory is not merely “useful,” nor the best idea at the time, nor a consensus among scientists.
A good theory is the least wrong, and the one most predictively successful.
Things are proven wrong in science, not proven right.
Such proofs are not “practical doubts.” They are demonstrated proofs; demonstrated by way of replicable observation and/or experiment. With the meaning provided by the physical theory that made the successful prediction.
And prediction in science is not merely some naïve assertion (the moon is made of green cheese). Predictions are made from first principles from an internally coherent physical theory.
Proofs in math or logic, by the way, are only proofs that the conclusion is consistent with the assumptions. All of math or all of logic is no more than complicated ways of showing that a = a.
Only science is non-axiomatic.
Climate modeling, with its inability or unwillingness to confront physical error, is hardly more than a liberal art decorated with mathematics; a critical theory that assumes what should be proved and under which every study is confirmatory.

joelobryan

“Consequently you are stuck with models. They are more or less useful. Not correct, useful.”
My new axiom:
“All idiots are wrong. Some are useful.”
h/t to Vladimir Lenin.

Tom Halla

I hope Bridenstine is being diplomatic in stating the NAS is non-partisan and apolitical.

stock

I hope he was being sarcastic, LOL

Sheri

Maybe so. His collegues are unlikely to understand sarcasm, making the whole idea delightfully tempting. Messing with people’s heads.

waterside4

Yes that’s where I feel off my high chair with laughter.

Latitude

I think it’s hard to get the head of the widget factory……to bash widgets

Wrusssr

Believe you’re on to something, Lat. Bridenstine is now dancing to the puppeteers’ financial music and instructions. He’s charged with keeping NASA’s marvelous Manned Mars Mission smoothly on the public’s radar, the Van Allen Belts and moon “walks” swept deftly beneath NASA’s rug, and resurrecting agency warmist ghosts. The task is daunting. Researchers already have reported a faint distant ringing they believe could be bullspit bells going off in people’s heads. Others have reported picking up what seems to be the increasing sound of footsteps. Hopefully, someone shows him how to do the Texas sidestep before launching into the final frontier.

thomasJK

I’m afraid that Bridenstine is a career politician who is pretending to be a rationalist who forms opinions based on knowledge and observation. In fact, he seems more like a sad, sick joke that is being played on the [Citizens] of America who are rationalists.

Leonard Lane

Time for a new NASA Head. To gain a post through professing one belief and then changing it after you are appointed smacks of politics, not science.

Nylo

I think he was reminding everyone in there what they are supposed to be.

“Who knows, just maybe the shock of discovering a “denier” doesn’t necessarily disagree with everything they say might prompt some alarmist climate scientists to re-evaluate their prejudices, to be more receptive to criticism and other points of view.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Stop! You’re killing me!!

joelobryan

Labels are important to the Left.
Part of how they use identity politics to divide and conquer a diverse populace.
Getting the D label is how they identify their “enemy” today. Just ask AW.
Totalitarian regimes used the Jewish badge or orders for distinguishing marks or clothing since the 8th Century AD for Jews to create enemies for the rulers to blame for their own managerial incompetance.
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008212
Today’s neo-Marxist Left, if given the opportunity, will do it to all climate skeptics in reality, with the requirement to wear a Big D badge prominently.
They have already done in practice. To wit: Professor Peter Witt, for the denying political orthodoxy on the GBR, a crime against environment in the Left’s eyes.

zazove

Labels are important to the Left.
Lol:
Left, Totalitarian, neo-Marxist, EcoNutter, etc, etc.
Got another one for you: hypocrite.

joelobryan

I call the Left out for being hypocrites using labels… and that makes me a hypocrite?
Here I defer to Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts, where he wrote in “Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)”, the way to end racism is to stop using racist labels.
Chief Justice Robert’s final sentence of the 5-4 decision in 2014 that left the Left apoplectic because it exposed their hypocrisy:
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
– Chief Justice Roberts
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-908.ZO.html
The neo-Marxist Left, from the very dishonest, criminal former-AG Eric Holder, to the demented Justice Ruth B Ginsburg, have intentionally mis-characterized these words from Chief Justice Roberts, because he exposed the Left’s divisive agenda on America.
And so you do here. Zazove. The Left is nothing but lies, half-truths, and mis-characterizations … lies that crumble on deeper inspection.
The way to stop being a hypocrite is to stop using labels.
Sadly though, Liberalism is a mental disorder. Philosophically, It is a “chicken or the egg” problem about precedent. Liberals cannot see their own hypocrisy, due to the mental affliction of their condition.

paqyfelyc

joelobryan, the point made by zazove remains: you make heavy use of labels, while you scorn the left for doing so. So you deserve to be called hypocrite, because you do what you attack other for doing.
Using label is the way the human brain works. Everyone do this. The lefties don’t have a monopoly there.

“Labels are important to the Left.”
I was going to point out the IRONY of that, but someone beat me to it.
Here is the clue for you. LABELS ( ie categories) are important to thought itself
unless you are a nominalist.
basically, you cannot think, cannot write, cannot make your case against lables without using labels.

Sheri

Steven: The statement should be “Labels ARE the left. Without them, there is no left.” I realize labels are necessary, but when labels ARE the whole world, there is no substance, no reality, nothing. That is the current left—everything is black, white privilege, CAGW, #MeToo. There is no reality in this. NONE. That is the problem here. Labels are not bad in themselves, but in how you use them. Name-calling is another example—using labels to ridicule and bully. It’s like fire—I can use it constructively or destructively. I need fire for warmth and nature needs it, but it can be used to destroy, just like labels can.

John Harmsworth

Well said Sheri. The tactics of the Left (which includes environmentalists, is deliberately divisive and a mix of old-style consensus and divide and conquer.
On one hand they seek to draw blacks, the poor, environmentalists, youth, immigrants, etc. under one umbrella with general claims of injustice, all to be fixed by taking money away from those who have it. This ignores the fact that the bulk of this money is invested in productive enterprise and diverting it to non-productive uses would be bad for the economy. But hey, who doesn’t like money you don’t have to work for?
The Left then engages in name calling and labelling in order to sub-divide its opponents. This attempts to set all white males apart as guilty parties, for instance. White women are guilty to a lesser extent. deniers are their own category. That way the less guilty (white women) can feel free to support the cause even though the cause despises them).
The important things to rember are that those who have done the most and take on the greatest responsibility are the most guilty, while those who do nothing and are most irresponsible are saints and are infinitely deserving.
This is the modern paradigm. AGW creates another category of saints and sinners to manipulate in furtherance of the Socialist agenda. If we can’t reverse this the West will collapse within a generation.

MarkW

The left uses labels in place of thinking.

Kristi Silber

I don’t think it’s labels as such that are wrong, it’s broad generalizations and assumptions – it’s using labels to pigeonhole people. It’s a way of dehumanizing them, makes it OK to hate and despise them and think they have no brains. The Left do it, too, of course, but that doesn’t make it OK.
Plenty of people here have made unjustifiable and completely wrong assumptions about me based on nothing by my views about climate change. Can’t people think without carrying all this baggage? No, they can’t. They’re human! The way to avoid mislabeling most of humanity is to be aware of the very human propensity to do so. We are not at all rational without consciously making the effort. Skepticism requires attention and energy, not knee-jerk pronouncements based on gut feelings, assumptions and generalizations.
It’s not the Left or the Right who suffer from cognitive biases, it’s everyone.

Rich Davis

wow. I had to go back and re-read that one Kristi. On second pass, I still can’t find a word that I disagree with.

Kristi Silber

Rich –
I had to read yours twice, too! 🙂
I’m glad. Thanks for saying something.
Kristi

Kristi Silber

Sheri –
“‘Labels ARE the left. Without them, there is no left.’ I realize labels are necessary, but when labels ARE the whole world, there is no substance, no reality, nothing.”
You are denying people their humanity. You don’t think people on the left think and have values and meaning in their lives? Or what? I guess I don’t understand. But I’m a liberal (mostly), and I guarantee you I have substance. I have enough substance to know that there must be Left and Right, liberal and conservative. There must be balance. Extremes of either are not good because they divide the country. These days we cannot be civil to one another, cannot cooperate or compromise. You see the activist Left portrayed in the media, and the Left have become very vocal in response to Trump – just as the Right did in response to Obama. It has to end, for the sake of the nation! We all have a destructive sense of entitlement, both on the Left and Right, but expressed in different ways. Ach! Politics, schmolitics.

ripshin

Kristi,
Fair comment. My main complaint is when individuals let their political identity become their sole focus. I have many liberal friends, many conservative friends, and many libertarian friends. The ones who have whole and balanced lives, of which politics is only a part, are easy to live next to and remain friends with.
The ones who insist upon defining everything through the lens of politics, whether they’re on the right or left, are insufferable. What I think we’ve lost is the ability to recognize that reasonable people can disagree about many things. My worldview and perspective are different than those on the other side of the aisle, so naturally I have different expectations for society and government. The practical effect of this is a divide. I’m not so bothered by this. What bothers me is the dehumanization of people, and their beliefs…which, I guess, is your point…
rip

Jeff

Bridenstine described how his thinking had “evolved”

Evolved due to the realisation that NASA research funding is partly dependent on acknowledging AGW.

TA

Disappointing. He regressed. Well, he wouldn’t be the first smart guy to be wrong on this subject.

Sheri

See “Tillerson”.

Great series of articles! Thanks.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

Just as long as he is still on the muslim outreach bandwagon, everything is ok.

Albert

Perhaps this is just another hint that we elected a swamp monster who told us he wanted to drain the swamp.

gbaikie

Bridenstine is leading NASA in the direction that NASA as always wanted to go – explore the Moon and explore Mars.
We going to send robotic missions to lunar poles, then crew to Moon, and continue robotic exploration of Mars, getting to point sending crew to Mars.
And private sector will mine water and make rocket fuel on the Moon which will revolution the use of the Space Environment which transform the lives of all people living on Earth.

John Harmsworth

Going back to the moon is NASA’s way of doing as little as possible. It actually gets in the way of going to Mars. It’s a waste of time and money, just like the ISS.

gbaikie

“It’s a waste of time and money, just like the ISS”
ISS has been waste of money. And SLS has been a waste of money.
And LOP-G is a waste money, as has Obama “plan” of going to a space rock.
I think NASA should go to the Moon and by time NASA finishes exploring Moon, have
resolved what they going to do with ISS, SLS, and LOP-G.
And once those “funding problems” have been resolved, NASA should have enough funding
for manned Mars exploration program.we
What ISS failed to do was to provide a means to re-fuel rockets in orbit. And what it did mostly is support the Russia space program. What SLS has done, is provide pork, for US companies. And don’t know what LOP-G is doing other than more government waste of tax dollars.
But a lunar program should start with robotic exploration of lunar poles.
It should also develop a means of refueling in orbit, then finish with crewed landing and lunar sample returns.

This is NASA’s way of not committing suicide…

joelobryan

Maybe he just doesn’t want the death threats against him and his family that the EcoNutters have delivered to EPA Director Scott Pruitt.
And if you think my comment is hyperbole, just ask Congressman Steve Scalise about actual nutters on the Left and their fanaticism.

Sheri

Good point. Being rational among the insane is a very dangerous position.

“NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine has confused critics by suggesting that humans contribute to climate change “in a major way””
I think he is more likely confusing those who cheered his appointment.
“Bridenstine described how his thinking had “evolved” on the topic and laid out his current beliefs.”
It can happen.

joelobryan

NASA is Big “S”cience.
– Big S is government grants and contracts. Hundreds of billions every year. It is a an industry that Eisenhower warned about, voraciously depending on the government and using well-paid, well-placed lobbyists to keep the dole coming… Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, All the earth resource satellite makers. All the supercomputer builders to run hand-tuned GCMs. And all the cottage industry that feeds on NASA’s climate machine.
– Little “s”cience is a method of discovering truth. Figuring out how nature works. Two steps forward, one step back. Dead ends research path, failed hypotheses. Admission of uncertainty. Exploration of alternative explanations of the data.
Little “s”cience is no place for NASA and its budget masters.

Ya little science is done in middle school.
you guys are really funny.
here is a clue, little science doesnt discover the truth. neither does big science.
Science aims at being LESS WRONG than the existing explanations.
To date no skeptic has offered a counter theory to AGW.
Note a counter theory must explain PLANETARY Climate.
thats temperatures ( at all pressure profiles) Ocean circulation, Ice, winds, rain, snow, sea surface salinity
If skeptics cannot provide a better theory, then they are not really doing science.
they are throwing philosophical spitballs

paqyfelyc

“To date no skeptic has offered a counter theory to AGW”
Not true. Plenty of theory around.
Sunrays
clouds
ocean
cycles
and, my favorite, because the simplest and totally supported by mathematics and facts: self-generated noise of a chaotic system (and the climate is a chaotic system, so it does what just every chaotic system do. Hell, this is pretty much their definition!)

Latitude

“To date no skeptic has offered a counter theory to AGW.”
Of course they have…..my favorite is it’s all adjustments
…but then the criteria you list PLANETARY Climate….your team can’t even do
Neither team knows squat or is even capable of it…..to challenge someone to do something your team can’t even do is deflection

Richard M

Mosher claims – “To date no skeptic has offered a counter theory to AGW.”
You really should read the work of Dr. William Gray. Your claim is absolute nonsense.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2010_heartland.pdf

Timo Soren

@Mosher, actually you are quite wrong. Skeptics don’t have to offer a counter theory to AGW. iF you theory doesn’t work, it is done.
The argument we can’t think of anything else is foolish. Although it may guide you to your next incarnation, it does not make it correct.
Skeptics have forever said the human signal is not apparent, warmist so frequently talk about the fingerprints, when in reality natural variation is still the heavy favorite.
The lack of good data, over abundance of inconsistent methodology, weird math, and million lines of code in coarse models only confirms a rationale person reticence to accept any of this.

@Mosher, Consider the network of thermometers to measure the surface temps. Since we have and unusual and not random distribution of readings. It is typical that the thermometer ends up representing an area around itself and is used to influence/judge other thermometers. Weightings are used to achieve this. The reason, is that ‘you’ wish to get a global temp. When in reality you could get a good temp on part of the world (say li mited to equally area weight thermometers) and the rest of the world would be unknown. But you don’t want that, you want more than your tools can achieve. So massive approximation models are built.
What ration justification do you have that a single thermometer has greater value than another? Because you want it to?

To date no skeptic has offered a counter theory to AGW.

And what planet are you living on ?

Mr Mom
It is not our responsibility to prove your team wrong. Your team has made the claim, it is up to your team to prove your claim in a credible way.
Don’t pass the responsibility.
You have just identified the game that is in play. Prove us wrong. It’s like trying to prove that God does not exist, or that God does exist.
Regards

Mr Mom, should be Mr Mosher.

Craig

“To date no skeptic has offered a counter theory to AGW.”
How do you write something like that and expect to have any credibility whatsoever? Talk about being a denier…

Rich Davis

ah but Ike was a right-wing nutter, wasn’t he?
Probably less conservative than his Democrat predecessor Truman in many ways, but we won’t let that spoil the narrative.
The military-industrial complex doesn’t really exist. Nobody ever makes any decisions about climate science for any reason other than a disinterested search for the truth. Ultimately, it’s for the children. University professors are not fired from their job after 40 years simply because they express scientific opinions that their bosses find objectionable. Scientists write grant proposals based purely on what they think are the most important questions needing research, where they are competent to do the study. They would never take into consideration whether the politicians and political appointees who award the grants have a preference for one result or another. It is never the case that politicians who run on a platform of “fighting climate change” would prefer to fund scientists who propose to perform a study to see how much worse climate change really is than we ever thought, rather than to fund a skeptic’s project to test whether CAGW premises have any evidence to support them in the first place. It does not benefit a scientist in any way, to provide a result that reinforces a politician’s position on climate change. In any case, the politicians don’t care whether the science shows that they were wrong. They would just be happy to see that we aren’t facing any problem that needs a big government solution after all. After years of proposing a theory that proves to be massively deficient, such that the scientist’s life work appears to have been a total waste, there would never be any incentive to suppress skeptical research from being published. And anyway how could they do that when the peer review system is totally beyond reproach? There has never been even a suggestion of impropriety among the “elite” “scientists”. The so-called Climategate matter is a figment of your fevered imagination. Nobody has tried to hide the decline. What decline?
Anyone whose febrile imagination finds the slightest cause to question these facts is a raving nutter.
Do any of you dispute it?

jorgekafkazar

Ha-ha, that’s Rich!
Well done!

joelobryan

“To date no skeptic has offered a counter theory to AGW.”
I have one Steven. It is not novel.
It is called the Null Hypothesis.
You should investigate the Null Hypothesis, Steven.
It is quite enlightening. The Null Hypothesis has destroyed many science-minded investigators’ cherished hypotheses over the last few centuries. No replacement needed.
The Null hypothesis is a natural variability of climate is what we observe, becasue the ocean-atmosphere-land-cryosphere system is so large and complex that it is never at a homogeneous, internal equilibrium as long as the sun shines, the Earth spins on a tilted axis, and as it orbits a 5778 K G2 class star.
So just take the “A” out of AGW.

Rich Davis

null hypothesis? That doesn’t sound very progressive to me. Why do you D-ny Science?
😀

drednicolson

We don’t have to reinvent the wheel to point out that someone else’s wheel isn’t rolling.
Same natter from invincible ignorance the hecklers always spout.

Kristi Silber

“Sunrays
clouds
ocean
cycles
and, my favorite, because the simplest and totally supported by mathematics and facts: self-generated noise of a chaotic system”
These are not theories. What kind of theory is “cycles”?
“Prove us wrong.”
It’s not that skeptics haven’t offered alternative theories, it’s that they have either been disproved or they don’t explain the record. It’s not the fault of scientists if people don’t know their theories have already been explored and discarded. It’s telling that there is no alternative agreed-upon theory offered by the skeptics.
“It is not our responsibility to prove your team wrong. Your team has made the claim, it is up to your team to prove your claim in a credible way.”
There is enough evidence supporting AGW that the burden of proof is on skeptics to demonstrate it’s wrong. They try with all kinds of tactics, saying the data are fudged or don’t say anything, the methods are wrong, or all AGW climate scientists are corrupt. But that doesn’t disprove the theory. Skeptics have had 125 years to do that. Following on the theory came the evidence. It only became partisan once people started talking regulation.
What skeptic “team” is there, anyway, unless it’s based on policy or politics rather than science?

ripshin

@ Steve and Kristi,
Seriously, your standard for abandoning a theory that has reams of counter evidence stacked against it is that a complete and final counter theory must be presented? A complete and final counter theory explaining the complex actions of a non-linear multi-variate system?
So we (society) have to endure the increase of governmental control in our lives, as well as the reduction of independence and an increase in costs of energy because we haven’t solved the bounded chaotic system problem yet?
There is no requirement to have solved this physics puzzle before we acknowledge that the evidence for a single variable being the overriding control knob is wrong. In fact, the longer we hold on to this, the longer it is until we do solve the puzzle.
rip

Sheri

“It can happen.”
So can devolving. As can public changing of position while privately not believing a word you say (THAT is cognitive dissonance, not what is generally identified as such). People can be bullied into saying they believe, they can move to agree with the people they work with because it’s easier than daily beatdowns. I’d give historical evidence of the psychology of this, but the moderator is probably overworked and I’ll land there for sure, so check history for the use of bullying and beatdowns in order to achieve a desired goal. Truth had nothing to do with any of this, and it doesn’t now.

It happens that deniers funnily evolve and some of them even create right now a “it is plausible that humans contribute to climate change in a “major way” – that low end IPCC climate sensitivity estimates are possible.” department.
Hilarious.

Kristi Silber

Wow, Eric puts quite a spin on this! Somehow the whole thing ends up being about the prejudices of “alarmists” toward “deniers” (a word that is introduced by Eric himself, having nothing to do with the PR) and the way alarmists apparently invariably think and behave.
“But what Bridenstine said didn’t conform to their prejudice of what they thought he would say.”
“Prejudice”? It’s not prejudice if he expressed doubt about AGW in the past, and it makes sense to be surprised if he changes his tune.
“Who knows, just maybe the shock of discovering a “denier” doesn’t necessarily disagree with everything they say might prompt some alarmist climate scientists to re-evaluate their prejudices, to be more receptive to criticism and other points of view.”
Or maybe this will cause some “skeptics” to re-evaluate their prejudices, to be more receptive to criticism and other points of view. Maybe it is possible to change when viewing the science on its own merits, rather than what it means for policy or politics.
Admitting that climate is changing but believing it will only change so much is odd, as if once the temp increases another 1.5 C it will stay there.

Thomas Homer

Kristi Silber: “the science on its own merits”
I noticed that you didn’t include any science. I asked an earlier commenter this same question: Do you realize it’s okay to include actual science to bolster your claims of science?
There are no Laws, Theorems, Postulates, Axioms, nor formulae under the Theory of CAGW. How long do you think you’ll need to derive something of scientific value?

jorgekafkazar

Global warming “science” consists of “seeing fairy footprints by moonlight where the elephants danced at noon.”

Kristi Silber

Thomas,
What do you want? Do you expect me to provide all the relevant science? I’m not even trying to demonstrate anything scientific, I’m talking about what Bridenstine MIGHT have encountered, about which I know no particulars. It’s called speculation, the same thing Eric was doing. Why not ask him for evidence to back up his insulting generalizations?

François

The year is 2018, care to update your graph?

Carbon Bigfoot

Kristi we skeptics have NO prejudices.

Kristi Silber

Carbon Bigfoot,
I hope you are kidding.

Andrew Cooke

Actually Carbon Bigfoot, we skeptics do have prejudices. I am prejudiced against a couple of types of people in relation to the CAGW.
1. CAGW people who come on here thinking they are more highly educated and smarter and more intelligent than those evil, big oil supported, deniers. (Kristi, some of your posts have flirted with this.)
2. Drive by CAGW people. They swing by, make a post intended for response, usually by being obnoxious and then drive past, never to return until the next article. No engagement in conversation.
3. CAGW people who refuse to discuss the massive amount of issues that the theory has, from big picture stuff (historical issues) to small picture stuff (lack of hot spot).
4. And last but not least……..CAGW people who make no sense. If I believed in CAGW, I know there is ONLY ONE SOLUTION. Its called Nuclear power. But, noooooooo……somehow we can believe in magical fairy dust called solar and wind.

Kristi Silber

Andrew,
“1. CAGW people who come on here thinking they are more highly educated and smarter and more intelligent than those evil, big oil supported, deniers. (Kristi, some of your posts have flirted with this.)”
Just to get things straight… I don’t think I’m more highly educated, etc. than all skeptics. I’m more highly educated in my field than most, and that is relevant to some of the discussions I have here. Many, though, know more about climate than I. There are different kinds of intelligence, and I’m in no position to assess others’. “Deniers” certainly aren’t evil (nor by being deniers, anyway)! I would never have said that.
I don’t think there are many skeptics who are directly supported by fossil fuels – very few, these days. But it’s a fact that big oil gave millions of dollars to many think tanks and spin-off groups that actively advocated against AGW, and that there were many contrarian scientists and climate science advocates who were/are associated with them, and that there were propaganda campaigns against AGW launched with the help of some contrarian scientists. I suspect (but don’t know) there are still a few vocal advocates who are paid for their divisive, prop’gandist speeches and articles. None of this makes me blind to the fact that there is money on the other side, too, but the big oil/conservative strategy was to spread distrust of science, and that is not good for the country. America has a wonderful resource in her scientists. People come from all over the world to study here, it’s quite an industry.

Tom Halla

Kristi, the theme that opposition to the CAGW supposition is driven by contributions by the fossil fuel industry is very likely projection by the academics and NGOs financially dependent on being able to use CAGW as an income source. Projection is quite common, and irrelevant. Indulging in the ad hominem fallacy is as common as appeal to authority.
Calling each other a vendido (sellout) get us nowhere.

commieBob

In 2013, as an Oklahoma congressman, Bridenstine claimed there was no current trend toward global warming. More recently, such as in his NASA administrator confirmation hearings last November, he has acknowledged that human activity contributes to climate change. But he had stopped short of saying that humans are the phenomenon’s primary cause.

He’s a politician doing what politicians do. It is absolutely routine that politicians say one thing to get elected and then do the exact polar opposite once in power.

John Harmsworth

There is no CURRENT TREND toward global warming. Nor was there in 2013. This is correct going back to 2000. Current enough for me. Why do we keep forgetting that the world isn’t warming? CURRENTLY, it is actually cooling.

Sounds very sensible to me. Most sceptics completely deny AGW with the absurd claim that increased levels of CO2 are good for the planet.
I don’t think there is any ‘green confusion’ here at all. This is just being spun to get again make climate warming advocates appear in a negative light. He is simply saying that he backs the objective science being used to address the issue, and acknowledges that greenhouse gases are warming the planet.

joelobryan

“Sounds very sensible to me.”
As intended to keep the crazies (like you) and their death threats away.
Meanwhile:
Hark!! What are the crushing and gnashing-death-throes sounds I hear?
Oh! It is the Liberal’s climate religion under Trump.

Trump will be gone and fortunately the fantastic work of the IPCC – backed by every other country around the world – will be continuing as the US sceptic community is finally confined to the dustbin of history. Rejoice, rejoice O brave new world!

Rejoice, rejoice O brave new world!


We do not have to wonder if ivankinsman knows that the “Brave New World” he is rejoicing in is actually a brutal dictatorship of no liberty, no justice, no potential but only slavery and despotism – where all are ruled by the few elite.

RA you really are a dogmatist – your doom and gloom is just as bad as what you claim the warmists are prophesying. Get a grip man or you may be joining my side…

joelobryan

The Climate Scam collapses in the unprecedented brutal Winter of 2019 is my prediction.
And even if it doesn’t, the Left will cut it’s own throat with the pressing of identity politics in the US.
Do you think getting more New Yorkers or Californians (or Colorado, or Virginia, or Washington) to vote for Trump will matter in the Electoral College?
Trump 2020.
The inauguration of President Donald Trump in 2017 was a brutal lesson for the Left that needs repeating in January 20121.

Sunsettommy

Here is more evidence that warmists like Ivankinsman has not kept up with the documented IPCC modeling failures of the “hot spot” and the Per Decade warming rate.

“if you have any doubts that people are fed up with being lied to”
Here is someone getting fed up:

Simon

Eric, if people are sick of being lied to, they must be vomiting with Trumps lie a day strategy. It is such a laugh he calls the media fake. There is not an honest bone in his body.

Please. What “lie a day” fantasy are you repeating about Trump?
The democrat-socialist-mass media fantasy of Fake News that are actual lies about Trump and his attempts to save us against their ideology and your demo-gods?
No, he has not lied. Yes, they repeat their lies, Hillary’s lies, Oboma’s lies many times per hour on the ABCNNBCBS news feeds from your Washington-New York-London-Brussels propaganda.

commieBob

The inauguration of President Donald Trump in 2017 was a brutal lesson for the Left that needs repeating in January 20121.

I don’t want to wait that long.

“Here is someone getting fed up:”
Now is the root of Stokes’ near perfect misapprehension of the physical world made manifestly clear. Henceforward for me, politically motivated pseudoscience shall be categorised under the general descriptor of Stokesian.

Latitude

“he calls the media fake.”….
remind me again……how many stories has the media had to retract so far

Simon

RACookPE1978 May 20, 2018 at 5:40 am
Please. What “lie a day” fantasy…
Would you like to know today’s lie.
He tweeted Mueller worked for Obama for 8 years. He didn’t, he worked for 4.
Another day another lie.

Latitude

I think it’s the NYTimes, again, that reported it that way…
Here’s Trump’s tweet…….maybe the NYT only thinks there are 2 people that work there and one of them is Mueller….
…..or the NYT will just retract another one of their lies
Donald J. Trump

Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
8h8 hours ago
More
….At what point does this soon to be $20,000,000 Witch Hunt, composed of 13 Angry and Heavily Conflicted Democrats and two people who have worked for Obama for 8 years, STOP! They have found no Collusion with Russia, No Obstruction, but they aren’t looking at the corruption…

Latitude

Simon May 20, 2018 at 1:26 pm
…Would you like to know today’s lie.
=========
BTW, thanks for pointing that out…..I would have never seen it…..I don’t read fake news

Simon

Latitude
Except Trump has made the same lie before.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/trumps-misleading-attack-on-mueller-team/
Quote….Trump said, “In all fairness, Bob Mueller worked for [President] Obama for eight years.”
And where did he get his 20 million for the cost of the probe. Made up as usual.

Simon

Actually “if” it proves Trump to be a corrupt, traitorous president, 20 million is a small price to pay, wouldn’t you agree?

Latitude

LOL….I knew you’d be watching this to see what kind of reaction you got
You said “today’s lie”…..which was reported by the NYT…..today…and it’s a fake news from the NYT again
Look let’s face it, the NYT is still in business….so there’s a certain amount of people that like to be spoon fed their propaganda

Latitude

“And where did he get his 20 million for the cost of the probe. Made up as usual.”
From May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017. the bill was ~$7 million……~ 4 months
Sept 2017 – May 2018…..8 months……probably ~ $14 million
…so Trump might have undershot it a little, but it comes out to $21 million
“Actually “if” it proves Trump to be a corrupt, traitorous president, 20 million is a small price to pay, wouldn’t you agree?”
Did you put on a cute face when you posted that? Mueller has said Trump’s free to go already……

Simon

Latitude
“Mueller has said Trump’s free to go already……”
Really? Quote please. And if he has, why is Trump so fixated on making this whole thing “going away.”
And if you don’t read “Fake” news, what do you watch then? Fox?

Simon

Latitude
Actually if you don’t mind… (because we all have to be careful re fake news), I wonder if you wouldn’t mind referencing where you got your dollar values from ?

Latitude

Simon….google, bing, duck, etc…..you can search just as good as I can
I think I used……trump mueller cost

Simon

Latitude
Mmmm as I thought. No one knows enough to hang their hat on a figure, least of all Trumpy. Seem by December lat year it had racked up 5 million, so very unlikely to have to to 20 million by now. Still, like I say cheap if it turns up high level corruption or….. even treason

lee

ivankinsman, “absurd claim that increased levels of CO2 are good for the planet. ”
As opposed to plant CO2 starvation?
Or don’t you like or eat plants?

Thomas Homer

CO2 is also the base of the marine food chain. Carbon is extracted from CO2 by phytoplankton.
Blue Whales consume Krill
Krill consume phytoplankton
phytoplankton consume CO2
vegetarians consume vegetation
vegetation consumes CO2

What CO2 starvation? What on earth are you talking about?

schitzree

ivankinsman, do you honestly not know that all plants on earth are adapted to an atmospheric CO2 Level 2 to 3 TIMES the 400ppm we have now? That Comercial Green Houses routinely increase the CO2 level inside to over 1000ppm because that is the level at which the grow best? That the 280ppm ‘pre-industrial’ level that the Climate Faithful hold up as some kind of perfect state was only reached after literally Millions of years of slow decline as the Carbon in the biosphere was leached out and locked underground? That it was only 100 ppm above the point at which most plants ‘starve’ from lack of CO2 to fuel their photosynthesis, and with the loss of those plants all animal life would have soon followed?
Are you really telling us you are trying to push your crazy Carbon demonizing Climate Religion while being this ignorant of the basics of Carbon based life and the Carbon Cycle?
REALLY?
~¿~

Kristi Silber

schitzree:
“ivankinsman, do you honestly not know that all plants on earth are adapted to an atmospheric CO2 Level 2 to 3 TIMES the 400ppm we have now?”
“REALLY?”
No.
Plants are adapted to recent conditions.
Greenhouses are artificial environments.
And you attack others for their ignorance?

lee

Ivankinsman @3.20am, There are levels of CO2 beyond which plant life stresses or dies. Do some research.

paqyfelyc

It takes very, very low CO2 level (like, tenfold less that current) to kill a C4 or CAM plant. In fact, they only exist because CO2 level are already low enough to put stress on C3 plants.
Life always find a way.

R. Shearer

Good explanation, lee.
There are sloppy thinkers and then there are those that lack comprehension of even the basics and those that intentionally ignore or embrace obfuscation.

So? Man-made CO2 has a short term

So we agree – increased man-made CO2 has a short-term greening effect and then this happens. Thanks for proving my point.

Rich Davis

indoor marijuana gardeners can control the atmospheric conditions and sometimes choose to boost these levels in order to quicken plant development and pack weight onto their buds. Increasing the CO2 level from 400 ppm to as much as 1,500 ppm can increase plant growth by nearly 40 percent.

https://hightimes.com/grow/cultivation-clinic-co2-can-increase-yields-40/
Now enlighten me as to how we can conceivably burn enough fossil fuels to raise CO2 concentrations above 1500 ppm.
Of course, we probably can’t trust the potheads. We all know how they tend to be raving right-wing nutters.
Curiously, AND I KNOW THIS IS JUST A COINCIDENCE, but Google only returns results debunking any idea that CO2 improves plant growth. Strange that the High Times article got through to the first page.

jorgekafkazar

Pachyfelyc: “…very, very low CO2 level (like, tenfold less that current)…”
What does “tenfold less that current” mean? And are you stating that sufficient C3 and C4 plant life will still grow under those conditions to feed humanity? Link, please.

jorgekafkazar

Rich Dav/s: I did a Google on “added CO2 increases plant life.” The first two hits were pro CO2, including:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
The results from there down were a mixed bag, with one propaganda piece even claiming that more CO2 will kill plantlife. Ooooh! Oy.

TA

“and acknowledges that greenhouse gases are warming the planet.”
And how much are these gases heating the planet? I wonder if Bridenstein knows. How about you, Ivan?

R. Shearer

Yes, isn’t a lack of quantification particularly sloppy?

Look at all the data on modelled temperature increases … public data readily available and not worth repeating it here.

Latitude

popular graph today…comment image

TA

So you don’t know. I bet Bridenstein doesn’t know, either. But here both of you are acting like you know what you are talking about.

John Harmsworth

According to the “fantastic work of the IPCC”, warming of up to 1.8C is generally benificial for the planet. I don’t accept that CO2 had much to do with this but the IPCC thinks it does.
So, Ivanskinsman, what do you say? Is the IPCC right? CO2 is beneficial? Or the IPCC is wrong?

Kristi Silber

John,
“According to the “fantastic work of the IPCC”, warming of up to 1.8C is generally benificial for the planet. ”
Where does it say that?

John stop going over this old chestnut. Increased CO2 has a short term effect on a greening planet after which this effect turns negative as plants and oceans reach their capacity to absorb atmospheric CO2. Do your research.

Gerald Machnee

RE ivankinsman:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-skeptics-want-more-co2/
All this article does is ASSUME that CO2 will cause warming and thereby harm the plants. the warming is NOT happening.

jasg

ivankinsman
Why don’t you bother to read what you link to? It is clear in that article and the science it links to that any suggestion that there is an overall negative consequence of higher CO2 is pure speculation. Just count those weasel words of may, suggest, might, etc! The bottom line is that it is far more likely than not that moderate warming is very good for most of life on Earth – in agreement with every history book ever written. That some bad things might happen in some places if certain pessimistic speculations are found to have merit does not amount to any argument that there is a hard and fast limit to growth at any level of CO2. Pessimistic guesswork is not an end to any scientific argument nor a refutation of the accepted fact that CO2 is demonstrably good for life on Earth. When scientists can point out with real numbers that any potential problems outweigh the obvious benefits then we might have grounds for worry.

Kristi Silber

“The demand for scientific integrity”
I demand scientific AND professional integrity.
The scientific community must allow debate and criticism. That goes without saying, and any infringement on that is harmful to the advancement of science. However, there are professional standards and procedures for such debate, and if those aren’t adhered to it is to the detriment of science. It’s not an academic freedom issue, it’s about how science is conducted. Science is a communal endeavor, and scientists have a responsibility to that community, not only for the good of the community, but for the good of science itself.
Public perception of science is at the heart of its value. Distrust in science makes it meaningless, since it cannot then serve society. Creating or perpetuating public distrust of science causes immense harm, far beyond the focal problem.
I don’t think all skeptic scientists are guilty of this, and some have been unfairly maligned and poorly treated. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take many to cause damage, especially when there’s intent to do so.

Rich Davis

Kristi Silber said:

Creating or perpetuating public distrust of science causes immense harm

To avoid any confusion, your comments were a response to Eric Worall far upthread, who said in the relevant excerpt:

The demand for scientific integrity is part of this groundswell – if you have any doubts that people are fed up with being lied to, with their kids being lied to, take a look at Peter Ridd’s gofundme page, just short of $200,000, mostly small donations from people who have had enough of business as usual.

Many of us could take this as a direct personal attack, the indictment of our crime as d-niers, but since you do that sort of thing routinely, that’s not very interesting.
The question I would like to have clarified is:
Are you intending to justify the treatment of Peter Ridd with your comments?
It could easily be interpreted/misinterpreted as saying that you think his behavior warranted being censured and ultimately fired. And it could also be interpreted/misinterpreted that he is one of the skeptical scientists who has been “unfairly maligned and poorly treated”.
So may we please know which it is?

Kristi Silber

Rich,
I’m talking about no one on particular.

Rich Davis

So I guess we can take that as you either didn’t bother to review the facts about Peter Ridd, so you wouldn’t want to rush to “exonerate” him when he might be “guilty” (even though you commented on a point that mentioned him by name); or you think he’s guilty, but you want to look like you’re non-judgmental, so you will leave it hanging in the air that you probably think he should not get his job back.
Great job actually. You pontificated for several paragraphs and by your own account, you didn’t say anything in particular. If you ask me, (and Lord knows, you won’t), what your statement sounds like more than anything else is “if we don’t have respect for the priesthood, the faithful can’t be served. If priests are not respectful of each other, the laity will pick up on that.”

Kristi Silber

And Rich,
“Many of us could take this as a direct personal attack, the indictment of our crime as d-niers, but since you do that sort of thing routinely, that’s not very interesting.”
You could take it as a personal attack, but I didn’t mean it as such. That’s an assumption, and poor reasoning.
I try not to attack people, I’m interested in their motives and reasoning – but most of all, I’m interested in the state of science and its perception by the public.
My best friend is a skeptic and staunch conservative.

David Runciman is a Prodessor of Politics at Cambridge University and offers a very objective view on this very issue: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/how-climate-scepticism-turned-into-something-more-dangerous-environment-the-guardian/

jasg

There is always a failure among the sanctimonious non-skeptics to appreciate that climate policy has great potential to do far more harm than good for humanity while wasting pots of money in the process. This is the major problem that concerns skeptics like me and it doesn’t even depend on the extremely shaky state of the science that engendered the bad policies.
Replacing reliable, cheap energy with intermittent, expensive energy means that poverty reduction will be hampered or even reversed. If those apparently well-meaning folk could manage to come off their high horses, engage their brains, and properly consider the consequences of current climate policy we might achieve win-win scenarios. There have been many examples of green fervor leading to really bad results but somehow the same bad ideas keep being trotted out like whack-a-mole by green zealots who are hell-bent on single-issue growth reduction and never mind the demonstrably bad outcomes.

Andrew Cooke

Kristi, I like the way you make such excellent points. Let me see if I understand your points.
1. Debate and criticism is good, but only if it doesn’t go against professional standards and procedures, also known as rules designed to limit debate and criticism.
2. Scientists have a responsibility to the community of scientists meaning “conform or be punished.”
3. We must circle the wagons to protect the scientific community against negative public perception. Negative perception dries up the spigot.
4. Some, ONLY deniers, are purposely intending to damage science by using the public sphere to their own ends. Usually its about money, mostly from the Eeeevil oil companies.
How about looking at this from a totally different perspective. Hey, I’ll even back off and say that both sides should give the benefit of the doubt.
1. Debate and criticism is good. Period. No caveats. If the science is good enough to stand on its merits, you won’t have to worry.
2. Nonconformism should be embraced. Stagnation is a thing.
3. Stay out of public policy. This is what drives negative public perception. From both the liberal and conservative mindset.
4. Almost all skeptics are skeptics of their own free will and volition. As an engineer, I have yet to receive my check from Evil Oil incorporated.

Rich Davis

I know, right Andrew? They keep telling us, “the check’s in the mail”. I’m starting to believe they really are Eeeeeeevil after all.

4TimesAYear

Very disappointed to hear that. Our yearly contribution is insignificant. Minuscule. Puny. Tiny. A small fraction of the total. Itty bitty. The tail does not wag the dog. And he says we contribute “in a major way”? Trump needs to find a skeptic for the job before this guy corrupts the rest of the administration.

the fantastic work of the IPCC – backed by every other country around the world – will be continuing…
…to say that nothing special or dangerous is happening and that many other factors are far more important to the well being of our species and the planet in general than the effects of GHG. That’s what is says. Go read it. Not the ridiculous Summary for Policy Makers that is nothing more than policy makers writing what they would like the science to say. Read the actual IPCC reports themselves.
It is a sad commentary on the nature of this debate that someone can throw the IPCC reports in the face of skeptics as if they negate the skeptic viewpoint. 25 years from now I expect that CO2 will be at 450+ ppm, nothing special will be happening, the IPCC reports won’t say much different than what they are saying now, and alarmists will STILL be shouting that doom is upon us and touting the IPCC reports as evidence.

joelobryan

Let us hope the IPCC (and the UNFCC as well) dies a rather ignominious death well before 2043.

How the hell do you know what will be happening at 450 ppm? What modelling have you undertaken to predict its effects? What evidence are you using to give such certainty to your prediction, given that CO2 has not reached 450 ppm in the last 800,000 years?
You are talking thru your orifice my friend. Never heard such B.S. that flies in the face of all current peer to peer reviewed climate change models.

lee

You want to believe ice cores? You think CO2 data is there for that? Short term spikes would be lost in the compression of “data”,

That is complete B.S. my friend…

Never heard such B.S. that flies in the face of all current peer to peer reviewed climate change models.
Would these be the same climate change models that the IPCC (which you just cited) set aside in favour of “expert opinion” after admitting that they run too hot? Those models?
What modelling have you undertaken to predict its effects?
I read the IPCC reports that make it clear that the models run hot, that there is increasing evidence for low sensitivity, and that the economic impacts of climate change will be not just less, but much less, than a whole host of other factors. I don’t have to do any modeling, the IPCC, which YOU just cited, says so.

HotScot

Ivan
“peer to peer reviewed climate change models.”?
Is this a new standard of review method? Tell me more.
“given that CO2 has not reached 450 ppm in the last 800,000 years?”
Atmospheric CO2 levels in cities are frequently higher than 450ppm. So, yes, we do know what will happen. Nothing.

Moronic comment. Not gonna even bother replying.

lee

ivankinsman, “That is complete B.S. my friend…”
You mean like Marcott’s temperature graph where he states the uptick at the end isn’t “statistically robust” because they use 300 year smoothing in 11,300 years? Perhaps you think they don’t do smoothing over over 800,000 years. 😉

“It is a sad commentary on the nature of this debate …”
I don’t see any debate here. I see a politically motivated group of fanatical Cultural Marxists and mountebanks who will say anything for money telling risible lies and honest people objecting to those lies.

WXcycles

I agree with Ivankinsman here, religions don’t live or die based on rationale and fact, they can easily out-last the current millenia, and against all evidence to the contrary. CAGW might become, or may already be the world’s largest fundamentalist religion and probably already dwarves Christianity.
Popes have kerosene powered tabernacles to represent gods’ presence to the genuflecting, and Mannites have UHI altered Stevenson Screens surrounded by asphalt to re-assure them of certain doom. Same diff.

Sceptics are an equally zealous sect…

HotScot

Ivan
“Moronic comment. Not gonna even bother replying.”
You mean more moronic than Guardian articles on AGW?
At least I’m up there, more than anyone can say of you.
🙂

Latitude

Ivan > “How the hell do you know what will be happening at 450 ppm?”
…because nothing has happened when we went from 280 to 400….the range where CO2 would have the most effect…the next 50 will have even less effect than the previous 50…..wash rinse repeat

Your living in dreamland buddy. As the increasing CO2 traps increasing amounts of radiation, the planet warms up. Laws of physics. What dud they teach you in school?

John Harmsworth

Never mind 450ppm. What was wrong with the world when it was 4500ppm? Are you afraid of the climate in Hawaii or the Carribean?

No idea what you are talking about.

Gerald Machnee

Ivan
** As the increasing CO2 traps increasing amounts of radiation, the planet warms up.**
Theory, not fact. Check the logarithmic effect.

97% consensus of global scientists agreeing on this so why should I bother? Every country in the world bar 1 also agrees about it so why should I care?

Tom Halla

Ivan, using the “97%” theme is a demonstration you just do not care about the reality of anything you write. Do you really need a review of Cook or Doran and Zimmerman?

Why do you deny the truth Tom about this fact? This is now common knowledge and in the public domain:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Tom Halla

Ivan, NASA was engaging in one of your favorite fallacies, that of Appeal to Authority. Citing some group or author, but not giving any of the evidence, is a classic use.
Besides, many of the groups “agreeing” are agreeing with something entirely trivial, that the climate has warmed since 1850. What the controversy is about why the warming occurred, not that it did occur.
Notably, the NASA post does not really state what the groups are agreeing with. Is it that warming is anthropogenic in part or in all? Does it indicate agreement with the IPCC models, and the presumptions behind them?

Rich Davis

Gerald,
Two thoughts.
1) Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You can’t win, and the pig likes it.
2) Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
But that’s not important right now. it’s just a random aside unrelated to this thread. I tend to do that, very bad of me. (As Kristi might say, I was talking about no one in particular).
And now for something completely different. I think that Ivan, was it Ivan? I lost track with my aside that has nothing to do with him? Whoever*, must have been talking about something similar to when a rate goes from zero to 10e88/yr, and then it goes from 10e88 to (10e88 + 10e-32)/yr.
That technically represents “ever increasing amounts” and we NEVER make value judgments about whether the change is significant. All changes are equally good. Is there actually any way that you could do a fair test for significance? Beats me! Maybe one of you sciencey people have heard of that.
For a rate change like this, normally we would just say that there is an unprecedented increase, hottest, fastest, worstest in all of recorded history, plus the proxy record. Or you can use the handy template “N of the M worstest years are in the current decade” (where M should be selected to maximize N/M). Unless of course we’re talking about a cooling of say ONLY 3.2 degrees in a month during the summer, then it’s obviously a trivial change due to weather and probably just a measurement error that needs to be adjusted out. The clue about it being trivial, is in the word “cooling”.
For advanced learners, though, there is a paradoxical rule to bear in mind. Let’s say that the metric in question was government funding. In that case, the example given must be rephrased as “Massive cuts in the blahBlahWoofWoof budget, poor to be hardest hit.”
Hey, just tryin’ to help you learn the ropes.
* Prof Ridd and I sincerely hope that the potentially triggering word ‘whoever’ doesn’t offend any reader.

Latitude

“97% consensus of global scientists agreeing on this”
It’s not possible that you hang out here as much as you do……and post that

Yep, because it is true. Prove to me that it isn’t and then I will retract the statement.

This is the reality the US sceptic community has to faced up to Latitude I admire it for its determination to fight its corner but Custer’s Last Stand springs to mind:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
[??? .mod]

Andrew Cooke

Bwuhahaha, oh look its Ivankinsman the great. Hey Ivan (properly pronounced eevan), how much do you get paid to come on here and spout this stuff.
97%? That has been disproved by multiple people at multiple times. The fact that you come on here with it and then get all cranky when someone calls you on it is proof you either: a. Think we are all idiots (probable) or b. You are trying to come to terms with your crisis of faith.
You don’t really contribute anything on here Ivan, but……

Latitude

what….that NASA approves of the wigget they made and sell?

Andrew Cooke

Is that the best you got eevan? Prove it? neener neener? Snooze fest. Go have your crisis of faith on some CAGW website. I hear there is a new one. It’s called AhhhWeAreAllGonnaDieAndItsTheSkepticsFault.com

Andrew Cooke

Or there is an even better one for the CAGW crowd. WaaaahIShouldBeAbleToForceComplianceFromTheProlesWhoDontBelieveInCAGW.com

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want A.C. Who is forcing you to believe in CAGW – certainly not me. You can rant and moan all you like and enjoy deriding the “warmists” for being a bunch of doomsayers – that’s your view.
Fortunately every country around the world is taking action on CAGW except for one moronic idiot and his lapdog EPA chief, who have bought into the politics rather than focusing on the scientific fundamentals. Luckily time and death wait for no man.

Sunsettommy

Meanwhile Ivan, you will continue to ignore the many modeling failures published by the IPCC because you have been programmed to parrot the mantra of no science commentary.
You push consensus, which is irrelevant.
You ignore the failed Per Decade warming rate prediction/projection.
You ignore the Increasing snowfall and cold in recent years.
You ignore the reduction of Tornadoes and Hurricane numbers.
You ignore the failed “hot spot” projection failure.
You ignore a lot of modeling failures because you are puppy for Pseudoscince babble.

Just to address one of your points SAT. There is no increasing cold in recent years as a long-term trend:
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/alaska-is-warming-so-quickly-that-weather-algorithms-cant-keep-up-popular-science/

Gerald Machnee

Ivan re 97 %
**Why do you deny the truth Tom about this fact? This is now common knowledge and in the public domain:**
It is nothing but a common lie in the public domain.

How the hell do you know what will be happening at 450 ppm? What modelling have you undertaken to predict its effects? What evidence are you using to give such certainty to your prediction, given that CO2 has not reached 450 ppm in the last 800,000 years?
You are talking thru your orifice my friend. Never heard such B.S. that flies in the face of all current peer to peer reviewed climate change models.

Never heard such B.S. that flies in the face of all current peer to peer reviewed climate change models.
Would these be the same climate change models that the IPCC (which you just cited) set aside in favour of “expert opinion” after admitting that they run too hot? Those models?
What modelling have you undertaken to predict its effects?
I read the IPCC reports that make it clear that the models run hot, that there is increasing evidence for low sensitivity, and that the economic impacts of climate change will be not just less, but much less, than a whole host of other factors. I don’t have to do any modeling, the IPCC, which YOU just cited, says so.
Like I said before, do read the d*mn reports yourself before shooting your mouth off and making a fool of yourself in regard to what they say. Here’s one good excerpt showing that we have many things more important than climate change to worry about, straight from the mouth of your precious IPCC:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/01/we-have-bigger-problems-than-climate-change-so-sayeth-ipcc-ar5/

What evidence are you using to give such certainty to your prediction, given that CO2 has not reached 450 ppm in the last 800,000 years?
Hyper ventilate much? What has 800,000 years got to do with it? What about 8 million? Or 80 million? Or 800 million? What about all the times in the earth’s past when CO2 was not just higher than it is now, but MUCH higher? Why exclude those periods and only focus on the last 800,000 years? Were the laws of physics different more than 800.000 years ago?

So you were living 80 million years ago? You know what it was at that time, or 800 million years ago? Show me the carbon record data please.

DonK31

Model results are not data. Model results are the hypothesis which must then be validated by observations.

What evidence are you using to give such certainty to your prediction
It is the assertion of the IPCC that direct forcing from doubling of CO2 will raise temps at the Effective Black Body Temperature of Earth by 3.7 w/m2 or about 1.1 Deg C. It is further the position of the IPCC that the most current science shows that sensitivity including feedbacks is low enough that they had to REDUCE their estimates of ECS at the lower range from 2.0 Deg C to 1.5 Deg C. They kept the higher range without any evidence to substantiate it.
Further, simple logic suggests that the lower range of the IPCC is correct (note, once again, I’m citing the IPCC here, WTF are you citing? All I see so far is arm waving). At 400 PPM we are at a 44% increase since the pre-industrial era, the majority of it coming since 1950. If sensitivity was high, we would see a dramatic change in temperature since then. In fact, the trend since then cannot be distinguished from the natural trend that was in place since the Little Ice Age. The only logical conclusion is that sensitivity is low. Which is why the IPCC threw out the climate models and lowered the sensitivity estimate.
Doesn’t it suck to be told your side of the argument actually isn’t your side of the argument ivankinsman?

“It is further the position of the IPCC that the most current science shows that sensitivity including feedbacks is low enough that they had to REDUCE their estimates of ECS at the lower range from 2.0 Deg C to 1.5 Deg C. They kept the higher range without any evidence to substantiate it.”
That isn’t your position at all. You say you are citing the IPCC, but that means nothing unless you get it right. The best way to assure that is to quote; second best is to give section details.
The IPCC, Box 12.2, give the following diagram:comment image
It does not show “the most current science shows that sensitivity including feedbacks is low enough” or that “They kept the higher range without any evidence to substantiate it”. It shows plenty of evidence for the high end, and no preponderance at the low end.

“your position” -> “their position”

“peer to peer reviewed climate change models.”
Ivan, you’re just spouting words the meaning of which you haven’t the slightest clue about.

paqyfelyc

@nick
it shows a simple thing: incompatible results are in this graph, so, someone is wrong; at least, one is wrong (for sure several, and probably all *). And IPCC is not able to point out the wrong one, so, it treats all them as if equal.
What kind of science is that? a settled? or a joke?
(*)The most plausible is that they are just ALL wrong for a simple reason: there may be no such thing as a “climate equilibrium sensibility” in a chaotic system, this only exists in a linear system with partial derivatives and equilibrium, which climate is not.

R. Shearer

It happens all the time. The leftists on their high horses accuse others of ignorance and sloppiness, in some cases ignoring that they themselves cannot construct a simple sentence.
Then in the heat of the battle they fall off their horses, swear, lie, show that they know little, are sloppy and on top of that are nastier than nasty. They can’t help but hide their true nature when their best arguments and retorts involve name calling and body parts and excrement.
At that point they become amusing and I laugh at them. You’re funny, ivankinsman!

Yes RD we are all Don Quixotes charging at mythical windmills … and I would apply this to the rabid sceptics who see warmist conspiracies around every corner. They are completely raving bonkers.

Rich Davis

I think you meant RS, but since you mentioned raving and bonkers, I heard my name being used.
Come on Ivan, can’t we all just get along?

Latitude

The IPCC box that Nick posted always reminds me of this….
http://hommelibre.blog.tdg.ch/media/00/00/2958966020.jpg

Hugs

How the hell do you know what will be happening at 450 ppm

Nothing much. Prove me wrong. We have 410 ppm now. And we have pretty much no dead bodies, but much improved agriculture = millions who were saved by the CO2.

No you back up your idiotic unproven statement – SHOW ME YOUR DATA

Latitude

It caused a volcano to erupt in Hawaii……..

Sunsettommy

Nick, the IPCC (The IPCC, Box 12.2, give the following diagram:) didn’t post many of the 75 papers showing low sensitivity levels per doubling of CO2:
75 Papers: Low Sensitivity
http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/#sthash.4ArSoWnX.dpbs

Sunsettommy

Ivankinsman,
Your argument (450 ppm in the last 800,000 years?) is irrelevant because the IPPC modeling failures have already occurred. They have been wrong for over 25 years now, which is why most warmists IGNORE it to maintain their “doom is around the corner” delusions paradigm, it is a sure sign of irrational thinking.
When will you ever deal with the well documented PER DECADE warming rate prediction/projection failures?
When Ivan, when?

Modelling is not a perfect science – how can it be? – but it is getting damn close the more the models are being refined based on improving annual climate data

Nick Stokes;
It shows plenty of evidence for the high end, and no preponderance at the low end.
Then why did they reduce the bottom end of the range from 2.0 to 1.5? Huh Nick? Why?

Sunsettommy

Ivan,
That is a pathetic reply since they are STILL just as wrong using their latest projection from the 2012 IPCC report, They have been wrong from 1990 onwards, with NO improvement in sight. They have been 50% too hot every time.
They are still very wrong on the ‘hot spot” projection as well. It is actually cooling slightly in part of it.
It is clear that failed models doesn’t bother you, hence your dead on arrival rationalization comment.

“Then why did they reduce the bottom end of the range “
Because there was some evidence that lower values might be possible. Might. But not, as you would have it,”It is further the position of the IPCC that the most current science shows that sensitivity including feedbacks is low enough …”.

Latitude

“The IPCC, Box 12.2, give the following diagram:”
“It shows plenty of evidence for the high end and no preponderance at the low end.”
Nick, the chart from the IPCC shows a range of from less than 1 degree…to over 9 degrees
…..an 8 degree spread
honestly, that’s not predicting anything…..but where they place their bets
… betting with a spread like that, I would be rich right now
And if this is their best science…..it’s not even close

Nick Stokes;
Because there was some evidence that lower values might be possible.
So, in AR4 they said the bottom end was 2.0 and the papers in between AR4 and AR5 justified reducing it to 1.5. So exactly as I said, only my full statement instead of the slimy-I’m-paid-to-obscure-the-facts-bs-truncation-of-my-sentence-as-written:
It is further the position of the IPCC that the most current science shows that sensitivity including feedbacks is low enough that they had to REDUCE their estimates of ECS at the lower range from 2.0 Deg C to 1.5 Deg C.
Yes they kept the high end. But it was current science that forced them to admit the low end.

HotScot

Latitude
“The IPCC box that Nick posted always reminds me of this….”
Now I’m not the best informed person in the world, in fact probably one of the worst, but that illustration always makes me laugh as even I can see that the bottom is falling out the CAGW alarmist’s world.
Imagine that, a modelled catastrophe being undone by factual observations.

HotScot

Ivan
“No you back up your idiotic unproven statement – SHOW ME YOUR DATA”
No need to shout like a child.
Clearly, as illustrated on your blog, your ‘data’ is largely derived from the Guardian and other media sources.
Please don’t demonstrate your congenital ignorance by demanding others clearly more qualified than you to provide data when you can’t provide any yourself. I mean, all the sceptical community is saying is that nothing much is happening, as confirmed by observational data.
It’s up to you to provide observational data that demonstrates any of the alarmist claims over the last 40 years are true.
What you fail to appreciate is that many of us have lived through climate scares since the 60’s. None of them have manifested themselves, not catastrophic global cooling, nor catastrophic global warming, nor catastrophic sea level rise, nor catastrophic severe weather, nor catastrophic droughts, wildfires etc. etc. etc.
The problem you have is, that you utterly refuse to question your dogma.
Many of we sceptics were also dogmatic about global cooling, then it didn’t happen. We were convinced the cold war would cause a nuclear winter, it didn’t happen. We were convinced of (CAGW believe it or not) and sure enough, nothing has happened, despite the wild, hysterical claims when the concept was first conceived.
My Great Grandfather was a Lay Preacher and was convinced humankind would be visited by fire and brimstone in his lifetime if we didn’t immediately cease our philandering ways. It was a common belief at the time, but nothing happened other than the gay community was largely accepted in western culture and AIDS turned out to be something anyone could contract.
I don’t suppose you remember the early 80’s TV adverts in the UK presenting AIDS as the end of mankind? Yet another global scare undone by science.

Stop trolling. Let the guy answer for himself. Not interested in your opinion.

Sunsettommy

You didn’t answer my latest comment in reply to you, what happened?

HotScot

Ivan
I’m not sure you understand the meaning of trolling.
You get more aggressive and defensive as the days pass.
Seriously, calm down.

WXcycles

ivankinsman on May 20, 2018 at 3:28 am
” … or 800 million years ago? Show me the carbon record data please.”
—-
The what? The “carbon record”? Please define “carbon record”.
____
BTW, I find it highly amusing that the whole battery storage and renewables industry is currently doing 2nd-coming flip-flops about graphiine super-capacitors, which showed up for sale in the Australian market in mid March 2018, and is touting them as the greatest development in storable electron technology to date. Especially given the GRAPHINE storage enabler IS PURE CARBON!
Apparently carbon has been to ideological ‘rehab’ and is now highly respectable and incredibly good for life, and set to save the modern world, in the 21st century.
http://kilowattlabs.com/energy-storage-advantage.html
https://solarbatteriesonline.com.au/product/sirius-energy-storage-capacitor-module-3-55kwh-48v/
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/arvio-supercapacitor-battery-review/
http://revolution-green.com/holy-grail-already-super-capacitor-battery/
http://arvio.com.au/tech_pack
http://arvio.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/indendance-day-pic-159×300.png
Looks like the Lithium battery is soon to go the way of the NiCad battery.
Competitive energy-density, weight and cost, plus ULTRA-FAST RECHARGING, you can’t over charge it, no toxic or flamable gases, can use 100% of available charge, zero capacity degradation with time, unlimited recharging cycles, cell life of 45 years, and ZERO THERMAL RUNAWAY HAZARD!—no more toxic hot Li fires! Lithium batteries simply can’t compete with that list of capabilities, from a carbon graphine super-capacitor.
Expect a Boeing 787 with carbon graphine super-capacitor ‘batteries’ within 5 years—same for new EVs. NiCad and Lithium battery issues solved.

Andrew Cooke

Wow, Ivan, you are more stridently belligerent then usual. Are you having a crisis of faith?

You obviously don’t like the link Andrew I put up ref. the 97% consensus. Prove it is a incorrect and I will retract it.

I’m sorry. I’m still trying to figure out how 75 replies out of 13,000 surveys is 97%.

Sunsettommy

When people like Ivankinsman resort to useless claims such as Consensus, he has no reproducible science research to run with.

@ David …CO2 is not likely to hit 450 ppm in 25 years if this cooling pattern continues. Note that the current April ML record only shows an increase of 1.26 ppm. That is without having a major La Nina on hand. The last similar low point was in 1999 at 0.99, and that was during a moderate La Nina of -1.2 C. Keep plenty of popcorn on hand.

Hugs

I think growing Chinese and Indian emissions mean we will hit 450 in about 25 years.

That is possible. I did not think of future growth when making mt remark. Although none of us know to what extent a cyclical solar cool trend will further reduce the yearly rate of growth. Overall, a very interesting time to observe the changes taking place.

Great words: he cannot now be called a “Denier”, the ridiculous insult so beloved by the brain-dead Left. He has pulled that banner from their hands, & they need it to rally the simple minds.
Now all he needs to do is get some honest scientists to work on quantifying human contributions to warming & climate change.
He could do worse than preparing himself by reading climatologist Dr. Tim Ball’s lovely little book: Human Caused Global Warming the biggest deception in history, which has a list of further reading. & it thoroughly exposes the fraud-factory IPCC & con-man in chief Maurice Strong, the depopulation demon John Holdren & the various bent “scientists” & scandals buried in the history of this behemoth fraud.
If he follows that up with Prof. Ian Plimer’s book: Heaven and Earth global warming: the missing science, which contains over 2,000 ref’s to peer-reviewed papers, etc, then I doubt the wool can be pulled over his eyes.
Personally, I feel TPTB have given up on trying to sell plant food CO2 as a warming pollutant: it’s a con too far. Only eejits are buying it, IMHO.
But they now have the job of backing away from the Frankenstein they’ve created. Interesting times indeed.
John Doran.
PS: http://www.c3headlines.com
Click on Quotes.

bonbon

Problem is will they back away from (to be precise) Dr. Frankenstein who created the monster? He is likely busy with the next monster model to set loose on society. What have we had : Malthus’s food v. population, trains leaving souls behind, global cooling, ozone, global warming.
All they have left is to deliberately crash the zombie financial system and spread utter b.s. to the easily susceptible social net, ala Tavistock, to get what they want – massive population reduction. Only problem is Putin does not agree, nor China, nor Trump. It is one thing to “back away” but quite another to prepare for the next monster – Glass-Steagall. Split up the banks now before they pull the plug.

Nice blog John

Dodgy Geezer

…I think, a lot of people at WUWT think it is plausible that humans contribute to climate change in a “major way” – that low end IPCC climate sensitivity estimates are possible….
There well may be – it is certainly ‘plausible’. But they will need to believe that based on faith rather than hard evidence. because there isn’t any yet, and it’s not for want of looking.
Which is not knocking them – Feynman himself stated that scientific investigation arts initially with a guess – but that’s a long way from ‘knowing’, which is what Jim Bridenstine claims…

That part caught my attention as well. I would doubt that many here believe that mankind contributes in a significant way to CC.

R. Shearer

It all depends on what happens in the future. Based on existing evidence I agree with you.
At present, my opinion is that the models run overly hot. This ought to become readily apparent or not within the next 30 years. The past doesn’t show a causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature. With mankind’s influence, perhaps it could.
The most significant causes of warming are land use changes and adjustments. It’s probably going to take several or a few multi-decadal cycles to be observed with modern instrumentation and satellite measurements before the precise role of CO2 is known with certainty.

ScarletMacaw

If the climate change is insignificant (which it has been so far) and mankind contributes 100% to that, the belief that mankind contributes in a significant way is mere spin.

PPS: Dr Tim Ball’s website: drtimball.com
John Doran.

Hugs

In 2013, as an Oklahoma congressman, Bridenstine claimed there was no current trend toward global warming

The claim is true. There was no current trend in 2013. In fact, there is no such thing as the current trend. You need to define a time range for a trend, making it always non-current. By choosing the time range, you get wildly different results. But of course, “current” has a very special meaning sometimes for some people.
This is something that English majors often don’t get.

R. Shearer

Yes, especially those English majors that haven’t mastered English.

M Montgomery

I’m getting frustrated with the slow permeation of thinking on the “deniers” side that “humans probably contribute to global warming”. If the real science shows otherwise, the only explanation for this guy is physical or political survival.
Dr. Ed Berry, Climate Physicists, has the science that has yet to be disputed here:
http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/the-big-misconception/
I understand survival, but the truth is what will set us ALL free in the end. We don’t have to give up anything just to appease the fools and crooks. Just lean in and get organized! Hit them hard and fast and get it frickin’ over with once and for all. It’s almost like the “deniers” want the drama.

R. Shearer

I’ll have to spend some time on his piece. Certainly, mankind’s contribution to the global elemental carbon budget is small, but burning of fossil fuels (and biomass) produce CO2.

R. Shearer

The main uncertainty around whether Berry’s hypothesis is correct vs. IPCC’s concerns the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere. Berry’s model fits known C14 data. I’m inclined to think he is correct or at least more correct than IPCC. This is another case in which the next 30 years or so will be very telling.

I would think that this story has some bearing on the subject matter of this post, …https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/trump-dismantles-nasa-climate-change-program

Also of great interest is that Mauna Loa shows that CO2 only rose 1.26 ppm in the last year as of April. That was due to the weak la Nina conditions. Imagine the drop in the rate when the next big La Nina enters on the scene, and holds in place for several years.

R. Shearer

I noticed that also when observing some of the measurement difficulties at Mauna Loa related to the eruption of Kilauea. There were a few days when CO2 measurements couldn’t be made.
I don’t think we know why the growth rate varies so much. A warming and cooling Pacific certainly plays a role, maybe the major role. Natural noise is larger than mankind’s contribution, as is sequestration of MM CO2.

It is easy enough to observe the direct correlation between high CO2 yearly rate in El Nino years contrasting with lower growth in La Nina years.

bonbon

Exactly!

Also of interest in regards to this lower rate of increase over the last year. Mankind is emitting more CO2 than ever before, yet this years increase is only 1.26 ppm. Did the oceans take up the rest of the human generated CO2, or was that due to biomass intake and ocean intake?

MattS

“We need to make sure that NASA is continuing to do the science” There is your clue. Now his wage is involved, he needs to ramp up the scare and suggest more funding as a solution.

PiperPaul

You can achieve many astonishing things when the communications gatekeepers are on your side.

Mihaly Malzenicky

There is no need to distinguish between the right and the left in this matter because the processes affect everyone. Scientific consensus on this issue is quite obvious and can not be completely ignored.

paqyfelyc

you mean, the consensus according to which scientists give results incompatible with each other, as evidenced in the IPCC graph provided by Nick Stokes above?

R. Shearer

I’m a scientist working at the periphery of this. At my facility, if we took an anonymous vote, the concensus would be different.
That of course is not how science works and you should know that. Besides that, politics are driving this debate and have been at least since the late 1980’s.

Rich Davis

Mihaly Malzenicky,
With respect, I think you are mistaken. You fail to recognize that there are many competent scientists who disagree with what is, in reality, a political consensus. I think that you are in Slovakia? I have no first-hand knowledge of how it is in your country, but expect it is not unlike the rest of Europe. When the scientists are given both positive and negative incentives to stick to the party line, we cannot ignore the question of politics and how this suppresses the search for the truth. Any time that it is considered dangerous to question orthodoxy, the search for knowledge is in peril. And these days, scientists know that there are political limits to what they may think or say. Look to the situation in Australia with Peter Ridd for an example.
In any case, consensus is irrelevant. The question is what is real, what is true. Many times in history there has been a consensus that something is true when it was totally false. The only thing we owe to consensus is to answer its claims. If you spend some time reading here, you will find many examples of this being done well, and some unnecessary political chatter that you can safely ignore.

TA

Bridenstein should stick to Space Development.

bonbon

He is the first elected official to serve as NASA Administrator. His nomination drew controversy given his lack of formal qualifications in science or engineering, and his rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change.
Trump rejected Paris not based on science, but business. Pruitt wanted a Red-BlueTeam to debate climate but was sidelined. Has science become so damaged politics rejects it? The only way to change this is NASA-like crash programs, like Apollo, not PPP nutty deals.

bonbon

As Stafford said NASA will have to pay Russia to take over the US part of ISS since no PPP is capable of doing it in time. “N” in NASA means National, a part of international relations.

hunter

Sounds like he was either lying in Congress or converted to the secular religion.
I find it fascinating as to how weak minded most politicians are in the face of “progressive” claptrap.
…and how effective the swamp/consensus is in marketing their failed narrative.

Bridenstine is not a scientist. Here’s 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts view on climate change:
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

Jacob Frank

I’ll never shake the feeling that in the end Trump will screw us over and switch sides.

R. Shearer

It’s good to have that feeling, it shows that you don’t reject all we know about power, politicians and their earned trust. Furthermore, disappointments are always around the corner.

gbaikie

“I’ll never shake the feeling that in the end Trump will screw us over and switch sides. ”
Is that the same thing as the dems will stop insanely hating Trump?
I think Trump will side with what most Americans want, is that switching sides?

Doug

“I think, a lot of people at WUWT think it is plausible that humans contribute to climate change in a “major way” – that low end IPCC climate sensitivity estimates are possible.
But there is a big difference between thinking we contribute to global warming, and thinking we face a global climate emergency.”
———————————————————————————————————-
Thank you so much for saying that. It needs to be said over and over. We will never convince the greater public that climate science is some a left wing conspiracy to control the world, or any other strident claim. Perhaps though, with a measured tone, we can convince them that the evidence and data for an emergency are lacking.

gbaikie

“Perhaps though, with a measured tone, we can convince them that the evidence and data for an emergency are lacking.”
A warming world has always been a good thing.
Problem is people don’t know what warming world looks like and people tend not to like change, even though they tend to be eager to vote for it.
I think it is overly optimistic to assume humans are having major effect upon global temperature.
We currently live in a cold world. Our global climate is called an icebox climate.
A icebox climate is when the world has a cold ocean, and our oceans are cold.
The ocean surface is fairly warm, but all of the ocean has average temperature of about
3.5 C, which is cold, but within a period of say 1 million years, the ocean has been colder than 3.5 C.
It thought to have cooled as cold as an average temperature of 1 C.
But if and when the entire has average temperature of 1 C, the temperature of the surface of the ocean is not a lot different than our current average surface temperature of about 17 C.
Or average ocean surface temperature instead of being 17 C, could have average of around 15 C, but land average temperature would much colder, it ocean surface was 2 C cooler.
So currently our average land surface air temperature is about 10 C, and over last century or so, land temperature have increased by about 1 C.
The averaging of ocean 17 C and Land 10 C gives a average global temperature of about 15 C.
The land average temperature of Canada and Russia is about minus 4 C, and being largest countries it is part of reason why average land is about 10.
China average is about 10 C, and all of US is about 10 C, but excluding Alaska, or just the continental US it is about 12 C. Africa is warmest continent and India is a warm country, as is countries in southeast Asia. And these warm regions have “always” been warm and have “always” had relatively high human population. And humans are a tropical creature.
Therefore humans not in tropics tend to like warmer conditions, or tend to consider a tropical island as a paradise. And they will set home thermostat to about 20 C.
Anyhow to increase global average temperature, the entire ocean average temperature must increase, and in last hundred years it has not increased by much or been around 3.5 C. And it has been around 3.5 C for thousands of years. The ocean average surface temperature in last century may risen by about 1/2 C, and average ocean surface temperature has been fluctuating over thousands of years.
It is thought that in last interglacial period that the ocean was much warmer than 3.5 C and may have been as high as 5 C. And if our oceans had average temperature of 5 C, this have very significant effect. Or Germany had tropical creatures when ocean was this warm. Huge effect.
But humans are going to cause the oceans to warm anytime soon.

Gus

“>>> I also know that we, human beings, are contributing to it in a major way. <<<"
This is neither proven, nor obvious. If it was proven, why, there'd be no discussion at all. The reason why there is a discussion is because there is neither a theoretical nor an empirical proof of it.
The earth is equipped in a natural thermostat. When it gets too warm, there's more evaporation, more clouds, more incident radiation gets reflected back into space, and it gets cooler in response. When it gets too cold, there's less evaporation, fewer clouds, more incident radiation makes it to the ground or, more importantly, to the ocean surface, so it gets warmer in response. This is the #1 climate regulation mechanism, and we owe it to the world's ocean, which covers 71% of the planet's surface, and 90% of the planet's biosphere.
The earth's climate is amazingly stable, the average global temperature variability is kept naturally to within a degree Celsius per century–and we have not exceeded it at all over the past 130 years, according to NASA. This is the fundamental reason why.
CO2 is not a "greenhouse" gas, because greenhouses don't work this way. They work, because they block warm air convection, so warm air accumulates within the greenhouse. You could replace glass with an IR transparent cover, as Wood did in his famous 1909 experiment, and the result would be the same. In fact, Wood found, that the IR transparent cover produced even more warming within the test greenhouse.
CO2 is an IR active gas. It means it absorbs, but also emits, IR photons, but its ability to do so depends on various factors such as concentration, temperature, and saturation. When it becomes fully saturated, it stops interacting with the outgoing IR photons altogether. And it is fully saturated. CO2 becomes saturated at concentrations far lower than the ones observed in the atmosphere today. This is why CO2, even at much higher concentrations in the past, never had any geologically observable effect on past climates, and neither does it have any real effect on the climate today.
Then, there is the issue of convection. When you add convection to the picture, it turns out that an IR active gas can end up cooling the planet, not warming it. This is called "negative greenhouse." Detailed analysis of this phenomenon shows its presence in the atmosphere of both Venus and Earth, theoretical curves fitting observed temperature profiles of both planets to extraordinary accuracy [1].
In summary, if humans, who impact mere 9% of the Earth's surface, indeed contribute to the Earth's climate at all, it is through agriculture first and foremost, because agriculture alters the greatest area of the planet, about 1/3rd of the continents, affecting the planet's albedo and cloud formation characteristics–forests, for example, exude chemicals that assist in cloud nucleation.
Our CO2 emissions are not only harmless. They are of benefit to life on Earth, because they feed it. Earth's food chain is anchored in the atmospheric CO2. We see this in greening of the Earth's deserts and in higher crop yields. We see it in more plentiful ocean life.
The problem with people like Jim Bridenstine, who majored in Economy, Psychology and Business, is that they are not qualified to opine on matters such as "climate change," instead becoming hapless tools in the hands of charlatans who run this racket at NASA and at other branches of our corrupt administration.
[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/acs.2014.45072 (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2017)

Rich Davis

When it becomes fully saturated, it stops interacting with the outgoing IR photons altogether. And it is fully saturated.

While I’m on your team so to speak, I don’t see that some of what you’re saying makes sense. I’m guessing what you really meant here was that when water vapor is saturated in the air at the ocean interface, most of the upwelling long wavelength IR is absorbed by water vapor, so that CO2 doesn’t have the opportunity to contribute outside of very limited bandwidths where water doesn’t absorb?
It doesn’t make physical sense to talk about CO2 being saturated in air. Any proportion of CO2 can mix in air. CO2 is saturated in the ocean but that also doesn’t fit what you wrote.

Gus

No, what I mean is that the ability of CO2 molecules, in air, to absorb outgoing IR photons becomes saturated, because they already have absorbed photons, they hold on to them (for about 10 minutes) and so they have no space, so to speak, for more. (It’s more complicated than this, when it comes to details, but this is really the gist of it). This net saturation effect is described by a logarithmic function, that is, the CO2 IR absorption in the atmosphere rises logarithmically (it means, increasingly slowly) with the concentration of the gas. The higher the concentration, the less impact CO2 doubling has on the outgoing IR absorption. There are coefficients involved that tell us at what partial CO2 pressure, within the atmosphere, the ability of CO2 to absorb more outgoing radiation becomes negligible. Ferenc Miskolczi wrote a number of theoretical papers looking into this and found, based on empirical data, that CO2 is not involved in the observed, minor, temperature rise during the solar activity grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century–hence, it must be saturated already. Neither is the hypothetical water vapor feedback in response to the rising CO2 concentration observable [1].
[1] See, e.g., “The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness,” by Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Energy & Environment, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 243-262, 2010

Gus

Actually, I should have just referred you to this article, which explains the matter of greenhouse saturation better, and in some depths, then refers the reader to Miskolczi’s papers:
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

Gus

You’re quite right. My description of the saturation above and in the comment following is quite wrong. It is indeed the greenhouse saturation, not the CO2 (or, more precisely, its ability to absorb IR) saturation. Of course, the latter is true too, that is, a >>certain fixed<< amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb only a certain amount of outgoing radiation and, eventually, it will have to drop the ball and let out the remainder of the outgoing IR photons, if there are too many. But in the greenhouse saturation it is the balance between CO2 and water vapor that matters, which is where Miskolczi's work comes in.

Rich Davis

That reference is very interesting, Gus, to say the least. I’m not confident in my ability to evaluate it properly. I hope that others who have the proper expertise would weigh in. It’s easy enough for me to see that it is controversial. I’m old enough to know that if something seems too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. So I’m guessing that this is ground that has been covered in the past that I have missed.
Miskolczi’s work seems to argue for a climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 that is zero, that is that although CO2 is indeed a GHG, increasing it will have NO net effect on global surface temperature at all. Given that claim, all observed warming and cooling periods over the past 150 years have been due to solar variation, anthropogenic albedo effects (land use and interestingly including warming from reduced aerosol pollution in the latter part of the 20th century), and ocean oscillations.
The theory is based on an equilibrium mechanism that maintains a constant greenhouse effect by compensating for any added non-condensing GHGs by reducing water vapor or adding water vapor if NCGHGs are absorbed by the oceans or otherwise sequestered. It seems to be a falsifiable theory that predicts that we should see steadily decreasing water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2 has increased. Data is presented and claims are made that this is exactly what has been observed and that the theory matches the empirical data for troposphere temperatures, explaining why the GCM models’ predicted hot spot does not exist.

Latitude

Rich, here’s another excellent reference on how CO2 and water vapor interact…
https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=710

William Astley

The ‘science’ that was used to create CAGW is 100% incorrect.
Observations (in peer reviewed papers) support the assertion that the resident time for anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is around 4 years, not 1000s of years in accordance with the phoney Bern model.
Based on the fact that the resident time of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is 4 years, anthropogenic CO2 emissions only contributed 17% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.
83% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was caused by the increase in temperature.
Obviously if the rise in CO2 was natural, then the rise in temperature was also natural, not caused by the rise in atmospheric CO2.

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Global and Planetary Change Volume 152, May 2017, Pages 19-26
The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years. ….
…. These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the Industrial Era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission. The results are consistent with the observed lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes (Humlum et al., 2013; Salby, 2013), a signature of cause and effect.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Global and Planetary Change Volume 152, May 2017, Pages 19-26
Previous critical analyses facing the IPCC’s favored interpretation of the carbon cycle and residence time have been published, e.g., by Jaworowski et al. (1992), Segalstad (1998), Dietze (2001), Rörsch et al. (2005) or Essenhigh (2009), and more recently by Humlum et al. (2013), or Salby (2013 and 2016).
Although most of these analyses are based on different observations and methods, they all derive residence times (in some cases also differentiated between turnover and adjustment times) in part several orders of magnitude shorter than specified in AR5.
As a consequence of these analyses also a much smaller anthropogenic influence on the climate than propagated by the IPCC can be expected.
Based on this approach and as solution of the rate equation we derive a concentration at steady state,
which is only determined by the product of the total emission rate and the residence time.
Under present conditions the natural emissions contribute 373 ppm and anthropogenic emissions 17 ppm to the total concentration of 390 ppm (2012). For the average residence time we only find 4 years.
These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the Industrial Era followed,
not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission. The results are consistent with
the observed lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes (Humlum et al., 2013; Salby, 2013), a
signature of cause and effect.
Our analysis of the carbon cycle, which exclusively uses data for the CO2 concentrations and fluxes as
published in AR5, shows that also a completely different interpretation of these data is possible, this in
complete conformity with all observations and natural causalities.

This is an excellent summary of the sciency monkey business that was used to create the Bern model.
Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Carbon_cycle_update_Segalstad.pdf

R. Shearer

Again, it’s amazing that in the last few decades, after all the billions spent in research and the economic and political impacts many times greater than that, this fundamental question is still not definitively answered. (See http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-not-change-climate/ from above.)
It’s almost like “hide the decline” when reality is being intentionally obfuscated.

R. Shearer

I didn’t appreciate it, but the CAGW crowd needs the CO2 atmospheric lifetime to be long, >50 years to 1000 years for human induced GW to significantly occur. This is fundamental. It is also uncertain and IPCC and followers are probably wrong about their conjecture but they largely avoid it.
Is their failure to answer this question one of ignorance or intentional deceit?

philincalifornia

Are they mutually exclusive?

Thanks Eric!
That article in Space dot com is a terrific example of gross assumptions, spin, sophistry and nonsense tales.
Bridenstine stated a number of points at a “NASA town hall” assembly. Points that CIO₂ then took and spun fanciful tales to overexpand Bridenstine’s statements into entire CO₂ religious tales.

“”I don’t deny the consensus that the climate is changing; in fact, I fully believe and know that the climate is changing,”

“Climate is changing” is accepted by all real scientists and virtually all skeptics. Alarmist attempts to claim false beliefs of skeptics is specious.
“I also know that we, human beings, are contributing to it in a major way. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We’re putting it into the atmosphere in volumes that we haven’t seen, and that greenhouse gas is warming the planet.
“That is absolutely happening, and we are responsible for it,” he added. “NASA is the one agency on the face of the planet that has the most credibility to do the science necessary so that we can understand it better than ever before.”
Nowhere in Bridenstine’s speech does he adhere to a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming definition.
“Climate is changing”, a perfectly normal view of climate.
“human beings are contributing”, an accurate description.
“greenhouse gas is warming the planet”, an accurate description.
Nowhere does Bridenstine lapse into CO₂ dooms nor accept CO₂ disaster predictions. Instead, Bridenstine pushes for accurate science.
Bridenstine statements focus on improved research, better science and NASA following the science.
Facts that normally alarm CO₂ religious advocates.
Especially, as thirty years of failed predictions prove alarmist reliance upon CO₂’s faulty assumptions.
Facts that cause CO₂ alarmists to decry demean degrade every climate researcher that adheres to scientific principle and observational accuracy.
Meaning that space dot com and a host of leftist media outlets are spinning specious stories from a few of Bridenstine’s well stated simple and blunt answers.
Adherence and support for honest science and research is a good thing. All of us skeptics support that!
It will not be long before alarmists are once again vilifying Bridenstine, when Bridenstine relies upon definitive observational climate science.
Bridenstine’s climate references start at about 23 minutes:
https://youtu.be/YFqz7VBoZCE?t=1344

Rich Davis

“I don’t deny the consensus that the climate is changing; in fact, I fully believe and know that the climate is changing,” he said. “I also know that we, human beings, are contributing to it in a major way. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We’re putting it into the atmosphere in volumes that we haven’t seen, and that greenhouse gas is warming the planet.
“That is absolutely happening, and we are responsible for it,” he added.

If you parse it out, the only part I can’t swallow whole is the word “major”. But I can chew it a few times and gag it down. If major means a significant fraction, and the theoretical warming due to CO2 is accepted as real (here I refer to effects that Richard Lindzen would acknowledge), even if we can’t isolate the effect from other natural effects within measurement error, then the plausible effect of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is probably a significant fraction of the observed warming over the past 150 years.
Objectively this could have been spun unappetizingly to the CAGW-true-believing crowd at NASA as human activity may have slightly improved the climate beyond the natural improvement long underway, or we may deserve credit for mitigating a mild cooling trend. Not terribly surprisingly, that was not the spin chosen.
I could see myself saying similar words to a hostile crowd of CAGW true believers if I were a politician who previously said distinctly different things more palatable to constituents in the most-conservative state in the US. My mind-reader is on the fritz, so I don’t have hard data to back this up, but my guess is that he nuanced his statements in both cases to be as palatable as possible to the respective audiences. That may be maddening to those of us who prefer straightforward and transparent communications, but hey, that’s what politicians do.
He “knows” that we are contributing. Notice that he did not say that he “knows” that the change is causing any harm or that it is likely to be catastrophic. “Contributing to it” is not “driving it” either. He ambiguously refers to the “consensus that climate is changing”, likely knowing that CAGW-believers hear “catastrophically” at the end. But he didn’t say the consensus for CAGW, he said the consensus that the climate is changing, which I imagine is a 99.9999% consensus, which I also “know” is true. That carbon dioxide is a GHG is not controversial to me, nor that we are emitting it in high volumes. He could have pointed out that the current concentration of CO2 is 10% of what it was when the Ordovician ice age started, but that would not have pleased his audience, so it’s fair enough that he let them hear an acknowledgment that the concentrations are higher than “we have seen”. He could have said that temperatures are not as warm now as they have been during other climate optimum periods when civilizations flourished, but that also would have riled the natives. So it is fine that he let them hear that greenhouse gas is warming the planet.
Instead of all those opportunities missed to poke them in the eye with a sharp stick, what he did was to argue that the good scientists at NASA would be well-positioned to gather evidence. If under this rubric, he allows some qualified skeptical scientists to pursue heresies previously unthinkable, that will be good, no?

John Harmsworth

I doubt
he’s allowed back in Oklahoma after saying that.

TA

This particular Oklahoman is not very happy with Bridenstein. He has weighed in on a subject where he obviously has no expertise, and has made things worse by coming down on the side of the Alarmists by relying on a “consensus”.
Fortunately, his boss, President Trump is not so easily fooled by the corrupt consensus.

Michael Jankowski

“…In 2013, as an Oklahoma congressman, Bridenstine claimed there was no current trend toward global warming…”
He was probably referring to “the pause” that even some major warmistas eventually had to admit was real.

BillP

I don’t care what his opinion on climate change is; so long as he accepts that it is not NASA’s job to study it.

gbaikie

Particularly, when studying climate costs more than going to the Moon.
So, ok, if only about 1/10th the cost of a lunar exploration program.

Michael Jankowski

NASA was supposed to be focusing on Muslim outreach.

Pop Piasa

Humans do affect their local climate in a big way. Urban infrastructure, superhighways, deforestation, damming waterways, etc. all contribute to weather development on a micro scale that is repeated in heavily populated areas to the point where the region seems affected. This has nothing to do with CO2, however.
It surely is the reason so many urbanites swallow the global climate change when presented with the current polar lack of sea ice due to warm oceanic oscillation.
This is just another bureaucrat needing to get a better understanding of the difference between science and scientific sounding propaganda.

Walt D.

You hit the nail on the head. He is right, but for the wrong reason. London Heathrow is warmer than it was 100 years ago, but has more to do with the concrete runways than CO2 from aviation fuel. Same with the city of Atlanta Georgia. It has grown rapidly to such an extent that it is claimed that it makes its own weather.

Roger

He demeans NASA. Free speech, ok, but for their sake, provide the balance!

Edwin

We often had bosses, political appointees, who staff were convinced were evil because of their previous views and from the day they arrived in house staff refused to listen and didn’t everything possible to thwart the new boss. Sometimes something happened and the boss’s views changed, sometimes dramatically to go along lock step with staff’s often bizarre view of the world. A few of us often speculated that someone put a “seed pod” next to their desk. Part of the problem was that often the new boss was far removed from the world of science but still enthralled with scientists. What some of them didn’t understand was the technocrats working for them were anything but good scientists.

Pamela Gray

Good lord almighty. We are NOT supposed to be cooler right now. Every bit of science says we are supposed to be naturally warm right now. And we are. No humans needed. Maybe people think there were extraterrestrial humans in the past that played a major role in past warming before earthlings built their first campfire????
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg

François

1950 CE (as you call it) was a long time ago, do you have anything more up to date?

michael hart

He does seem to be right in one sense: The greater the contribution of money, the faster they report that climate is changing. The solution appears equally obvious.

Denier is a unit of measurement that is used to determine the fiber thickness of individual threads or filaments used in the creation of textiles and fabrics.
[However, deweiner is the basic unit of hotdogs. .mod]

richard verney

There are a number of fundamentals, all boiling down to the quality of data and the extent to which it is fit for scientific scrutiny.
Fact 1. Despite hundreds of millions invested in Climate Science, Climate Sensitivity to CO2 has not been narrowed these past 35 or so years. The range is wide said to be in the order of 1 to 4.5degC per doubling.
Fact 2. We have a temperature data set covering the period where CO2 has risen from about 260/270ppm to about 410ppm
Fact 3, The forcing from CO2 is logarithmic.
Fact 4, No one has yet been able to eek out the signal to CO2 sensitivity from the noise of natural variation.
The upshot of this is that if one considers the data sets to be reasonably accurate, eg., to have an error margin of around 0.2 to 0.3 degC and natural variation to be slight, Climate Sensitivity cannot be more than about 0.5/0.6deg C per doubling. If on the other hand once considers that there are wide error bounds in the temperature record, say around 1.2 to 2 deg C, and if one considers that natural variation can be quite large then Climate Sensitivity could be as high as 3 degC, or even 4.5 degC.
The wide margin for Climate Sensitivity, held by the IPCC, is simply a recognition that the temperature data set (as we all know it is not really data since it has undergone adjustments) contains a wide margin of error and natural variation can be in the order of more than 1 deg C.

richard verney

Correction:
“about 0.5/0.6deg C per doubling” should have read “about 0.5/0.8deg C per doubling”
The issue being how much has temperature risen since 1940? I envisage that if we were to properly measure temperature, we would find that there has been no significant increase in temperature as from 1940 during which approximately some 96% of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place.

DWR54

richard verney

I envisage that if we were to properly measure temperature, we would find that there has been no significant increase in temperature as from 1940 during which approximately some 96% of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place.

HadCRUT4 includes in its monthly updates the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence intervals of the combined effects of measurement, sampling, bias and coverage uncertainties. The differences between their ‘best estimate’ and the coolest of the uncertainty ranges amounts to 0.05C since 1940 (0.73C versus 0.68C): https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html
The best estimate warming since 1940 is statistically significant in all the surface temperature data sets, as it is from 1979 in the satellite data: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

richard verney

@DWR54
The land based thermometer data records are rubbish and have no scientific value.
What is required is to audit the stations find say the best sited stations (completely free of environmental change since the 1930s), which have the best procedures, practice and record keeping. Then retrofit those stations with the same enclosures, painted with the same type of paint, fitted with the same LIG thermometers as was used at the station in question, calibrated in the same manner as the LIG thermometer that was fitted to the station in question, and then take observational readings in the same manner and same practice and procedures as used by the station in question, eg., using the same TOB.
We can then compile a list comparing each station’s historical RAW data (i., the station’s own individual record for the period 1930 to mid 1940s with no adjustments being made to that historic RAW data) with that station’s modern day RAW data (with no adjustments).
No adjustments will be necessary since the equipment used and the practices and procedures will be replicated as best possible to reflect that being used at the individual station in the 1930s/1940s on an individual station by station basis, and there will be no station changes or any impact of environmental change (because the stations being used are selected on that no change criteria). There will be no attempt to create a global or hemispherical or continent or country wide data set. No need to play around with spatial coverage, homogenisation etc. Just one pin point measurement being compared with exactly the same pin point measurement, so that we can tell whether the temperature at that pin point location has changed over time.
We would then just create a spreadsheet listing the number of stations that show X degC cooling, Y deg C cooling, Z deg C cooling, no change, X deg C warming, Y deg C warming, Z deg C warming etc.
Comparing like with like in this manner will tell us something of substance, ie, whether there has actually been a temperature change at any given site.

richard verney

@DRW54
You may recall that Phil Jones, head of CRU was interviewed by the BBC following the Climategate scandal, and this is what he had to say:
QUESTION

Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

ANSWER

in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
(my emphasis)

Thus Phil Jones was of the view that there was statistically significant warming from 1860 to 1880, and again from 1910 to 1940 which was no different to the statistically significant warming for the modern day period 1975 to 1998.
In fact most records suggest that there was little warming between 1910 and 1920 and if one looks at the 20 year period between 1920 to 1940 the warming is statistically significant, and is at a rate considerably greater than the rate observed for the period between 1975 and 1998.
Phil Jones readily accepts that there is no worthwhile historical data for the Southern Hemisphere (see his 1980 paper) and in Climategate emails he is more forthright observing that the Southern Hemisphere temperatures below the tropics is largely made up. (I myself have spent approximately 30 years studying ship log data detailing sea temperature records and I well know from this personal experience how sparse and unsatisfactory the data is prior top the ARGO era). This means that the only temperature data that comes close to being scientifically useful is that pertaining to the Northern Hemisphere.
Jame Hansen in his 1981 paper accepts the caveats that Phil Jones placed on Southern Hemisphere temperature records. Both Phil Jones (in his 1980 paper) and James Hansen in his 1981 paper considered the Northern Hemisphere as at 1980, was some 0.3 degC cooler than it was in 1940. If since 1980 there has been about 0.3 deg C of warming, as satellite records would suggest and appearing to be being largely ENSO driven, then the temperature today (in the Northern Hemisphere) is about the same as it was in around 1940 notwithstanding that during this time man has emitted about 96% of all manmade emissions of CO2

This would suggest that if there is any Climate Sensitivity to CO2, it is modest at most.

DWR54

richard verney

The land based thermometer data records are rubbish and have no scientific value.

Let’s assume that’s right, for the sake of argument, up to 1979 at least. We’re still left with the global TLT satellite data, which shows statistically significant warming since 1979. Warming in RSS in particular is as fast as that in the warmest of the surface data sets (here both are set to the 1981-2010 base, running centred 12 month mean for clarity):comment image
The rate of warming in the surface data sets and in RSS TLT since 1979 all round up to 0.2C/dec. That’s a total warming of ~0.7C in less than 40 years.
You might argue that UAH TLT shows less warming, and it does (about 0.5C in total), but it is still statistically significant; the lower bound of the 95% confidence margin still shows a positive trend (0.128 ±0.059 °C/decade (2σ)). Also, The upper bound of the UAH TLT confidence margin brings it into the best estimate ranges of all the other data sets mentioned.
At the very least, it is likely that there has been global warming of between 0.5 and 0.7C over the past 40 years, with most data producers settling on ~0.7C. Perhaps you also dismiss the satellite producers?

Mark - Helsinki

we do with land changes, anything that affects clouds, CO2? take a hike lol

jasg

Much of the debate indeed seems to be on a religious level; sacred Mother Earth versus the ‘Invisible Hand’ of commerce. The reality is that we are not threatening a fragile earth, we are surviving on a very hostile Earth and fossil fuels undeniably allow us to survive better.
Gee it would be just dandy if renewables replaced fossil fuels without doing more harm than good but so far only a few countries have been able to partially manage that; eg. Norway with it’s abundant high water and France with 85% nuclear power. For the rest of us we can only try to increase efficiencies by switching to gas. As it happens the Earth absorbs 60% of our CO2 anyway so our target can be as small as 40% reduction from current levels even if the science was saying something other than ‘nothing much is happening beyond a benign, probably beneficial, warming of a mere 0.6K/century’.
Then all that middle-class angst could be diverted back into globalization or population-control or whatever other sanctimoniousness keeps the ‘climate-concerned’ comfy with their own hypocrisy whilst those they affect are heartlessly condemned to a cold, hungry, energy-scarce future.

ResourceGuy

UHI is real but beyond that we have multiple cycle denial on a mass scale.