Guest rebuttal by David Middleton
From the Climatariat News Network’s Non Sequitur Department:
If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office
By Jill Filipovic
Tue August 21, 2018
Jill Filipovic is a journalist based in New York and Nairobi, Kenya, and the author of the book “The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness.” Follow her on Twitter. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. View more opinion articles on CNN.
(CNN) The Trump administration’s latest efforts to undo more of Barack Obama’s efforts to slow climate change come as no surprise. Nothing gets this President more excited than trying to undo his predecessor’s legacy.
[…]
In any reasonable universe, those who deny basic scientific facts that connect this grim reality to humans’ role in global warming would be deemed unfit to hold office. Imagine a congressman who questioned whether gravity was real, or a senator who insisted the earth was flat. We would rightly say that they’re intellectually deficient, and that their bizarre theories mean they probably shouldn’t be making vital decisions that affect millions of Americans (not to mention billions more people around the world).
But somehow climate change falls in a different category…
[…]
Sorry… I just couldn’t resist…
If CNN’s opinion writers don’t understand either basic science or the Constitution, maybe they don’t deserve a public forum for their bloviation. However the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the stupidity freedom of the press.
In any reasonable universe, those who deny basic scientific facts that connect this grim reality to humans’ role in global warming would be deemed unfit to hold office.
Ms. Filipovic, there’s a document that you may have heard of. It’s called the United States Constitution. It lists the qualifications to hold Federal public office. There’s nothing in the Constitution requiring any level of scientific literacy. If there was, Henry Waxman would have never been allowed to run for Congress.
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”
Back to Ms. Filipovic…
Imagine a congressman who questioned whether gravity was real, or a senator who insisted the earth was flat. We would rightly say that they’re intellectually deficient, and that their bizarre theories mean they probably shouldn’t be making vital decisions that affect millions of Americans (not to mention billions more people around the world).
You mean, like Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q
Now, let’s have a look at scientific proofs of gravity and the roundness of the Earth.
Gravity: “Mr. Galileo was correct in his findings.”
Curvature of the Earth’s surface: “How Eratosthenes calculated the Earth’s circumference.”
Ms. Filipovic… Are you following along? Gravity and the curvature of the Earth’s surface are upheld by trivial scientific experiments (although a trivial experiment on the Lunar surface was anything but trivial). Even though Democrat Representatives Waxman and Johnson probably wouldn’t have comprehended those experiments, they were still qualified for public office because they met the Constitutional requirements and a majority of the voters in their respective congressional districts were stupid enough to vote for them.
Also… you were correct not to mention billions more people around the world… They don’t count. They aren’t counted in the census, nor can they vote in US elections, unless they are US citizens residing, visiting or stationed in other nations.
But somehow climate change falls in a different category…
Yes… Climate change does fall into a different category than gravity and the curvature of Earth’s surface… A very different category.
Thirty years ago, barely 17 years after Apollo 15 Commander David Scott upheld the theory of gravity in a trivial experiment, NASA climatariat “scientist” James Hansen disproved catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AKA Gorebal Warming).
Hansen’s spectacular disproving of Gorebal Warming is even more apparent in his 5-year average temperature plot:
Bear in mind. I’m using Hansen’s own temperature data, despite his penchant for influencing “the nature of the measurements obtained, so that key information can be obtained”…
What’s that? The models have improved since 1988? “Improved” is a relative term.
Here are the RSS satellite temperature data and a suite of climate models:
95% of the model runs predicted more warming than the RSS data since 1988… And this is the Mears-ized RSS data, the one in which the measurements were influenced to obtain key information (erase the pause and more closely match the surface data).
Describing this as “a small discrepancy” would be like Dave Scott calling it a small discrepancy if the The Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop experiment failed 95% of the time.
The observed warming has been less than that expected in a strong mitigation scenario (RCP4.5).
RCP4.5 is a strong mitigation scenario with the atmospheric CO2 concentration leveling off below 540 ppm in the second half of the 21st century.
RCP 4.5:
The RCP 4.5 is developed by the MiniCAM modeling team at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI). It is a stabilization scenario where total radiative forcing is stabilized before 2100 by employment of a range of technologies and strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The scenario drivers and technology options are detailed in Clarke et al. (2007). Additional detail on the simulation of land use and terrestrial carbon emissions is given by Wise et al (2009).The MiniCAM-team responsible for developing the RCP 4.5 are:
Allison Thomson, Katherine Calvin, Steve Smith, Page Kyle, April Volke, Pralit Patel, Sabrina Delgado, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Marshall Wise, Leon Clarke and Jae Edmonds
Ms. Filipovic, if you are still following along… Hopefully, you can now understand that climate change falls into a different category than gravity and the curvature of the Earth’s surface.
The observed warming has consistently tracked strong mitigation scenarios, despite the fact that very little mitigation has occurred. This is a pretty strong indication that the climate is relatively insensitive to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration… Whereas hammers and feathers are equally sensitive to the force of gravity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In any reasonable universe, those who deny capitalism, the Constitution, or the rule of law in an attempt to replace it with socialism, social justice, or any other form of big government tyranny would be deemed unfit to hold office.
There, I fixed it for her.
I don’t see climate change agenda in any of the campaign messaging and I doubt we will see it this fall.
MSNBC in a weak moment recently revealed “climate” messaging is a ratings killer. There’s your answer–follow the money, “news” as clickbait.
I can see where most of the misunderstanding comes from
– they see the ice in the arctic melting and think ‘we (sceptics] ‘ must be mad….?
However, most sceptics have realized / measured that the CO2 does nothing bad so everything else is /must be caused by natural factors
as I have tried to explain in my final report
(just click on my name to read it)
Great stuff. Did everyone see the two theories on the last great extinction: “The Nastiest Feud in Science,” in the Atlantic? The link was on Judith Curry’s feed. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/dinosaur-extinction-debate/565769/
Right in David’s wheelhouse: does the layer of iridium found at various sites around the world indicate “one” event, almost certainly an asteroid strike, that changed the sky, the atmosphere, the climate etc. and therefore a mass extinction, including the dinosaurs? Or were there a series of events, probably volcanic, both before and after the “iridium” event, whatever that might have been?
“All the squabbling raises a question: How will the public know when scientists have determined which scenario is right? It is tempting, but unreliable, to trust what appears to be the majority opinion. Forty-one co-authors signed on to a 2010 Science paper asserting that Chicxulub was, after all the evidence had been evaluated, conclusively to blame for the dinosaurs’ death. Case closed, again. Although some might consider this proof of consensus, dozens of geologists, paleontologists, and biologists wrote in to the journal contesting the paper’s methods and conclusions. Science is not done by vote.
“Ultimately, consensus may be the wrong goal. Adrian Currie, a philosopher of science at Cambridge University, worries that the feverish competition in academia coupled with the need to curry favor with colleagues—in order to get published, get tenure, or get grant money—rewards timid research at the expense of maverick undertakings. He and others argue that controversy produces progress, pushing experts to take on more sophisticated questions.”
Unfortunately, the “rebel” holding the volcanic view thinks we are now causing big changes to the atmosphere, potentially mass extinction, etc. Climate change climate change. But she sets a good example of challenging the consensus on a matter which, unlike gravity, the curvature of the earth, even evolution, is not “settled.” We don’t have two earths for a controlled experiment, and data from the remote (to us) past is constrained in various ways.
“How will the public know when scientists have determined which scenario is right?”
When the next time a continent rips itself open or an asteriod hits, we should be able measure the Iridium distribution fairly accurately.
I personally lean toward volcanic activity playing significant role in the K-Pg extinction… But the impact was a big one… And if it really did vaporize a thick sequence of gypsum and other evaporites, it could have been more than enough to snuff out Barney & Friends.
I suppose it’s asking too much to bring in the AMO into the discussion and the comparison to warming in recent decades. Cycles do matter in science and the economy.
Believers in global warming pay attention to only two “scientific facts” and one “conclusion” and this is enough to be absolutely convincing to them:
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) They are putting huge amounts of CO2 into the air now,
…Therefore there will be catastrophic warming coming our way.
That’s it.
They don’t care if the numbers don’t show it yet. They have heard that “scientists say” that it will be bad, very bad. That’s all they need to know to think this is a scientific slam dunk and anyone who doubts it is ignorant.
The nuances of why the first two facts don’t necessarily lead to the given conclusion are lost on them, and seem just like sophistry or semantics if you bring them up. If you show them graphs or statistics they will simply assume you are trying to obfuscate the issue or that you got your graphs from shady “Denier” websites.
Their information is incorrect, and they don’t realize it. Trying to convince them of that against the weight of the establishment and the media is a huge uphill battle.
I would say that we don’t really even know the current temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. Our true error would include sampling and measurement biases.
Pretending certainty does not make an assertion true.
You’re right, MS. The entire AGW industry lives on false precision: measurements, climate models, paleo-temperature reconstructions. All of it..
“Imagine a congressman who …” asked if Guam would capsize if too many people moved to one side of the island.
Wait, It won’t. 🙂
Of course not. The navy has anchored down the other side.
If a journalist doesn’t understand basic logic, let alone science, she should shut her ignorant piehole.
“But somehow climate change falls in a different category…”
Yep that’s right. It most certainly does. It falls into the same category as eugenics – some element of scientific truth, an application widely promulgated by an intellectual elite who were sure they knew what was best for everyone, now discarded in the trashcan of human healthcare history, but not before it played out its roll in widespread human misery and social cost, including a global conflict.
Note that sometimes those viewed as progressives of the day who support these ideas are often later vilified in history. For example, the Canadian suffragette Nellie McClung was a supporter of eugenics and campaigned for the sterilization of those considered “simple-minded”. Her promotion of the benefits of sterilization contributed to the passage of eugenics legislation for which the Province of Alberta is still paying the price.
The big question is how much misery will Alarmist AGW generate before it too is thrown in the trashcan of science.
I’m sure the next comment will be from some egregious ass claiming that I’m saying McClung wasn’t progressive. I happen to think she was but she also thought she knew what was best for everyone else and is not around to account for her hubris.
“What’s that? The models have improved since 1988? “Improved” is a relative term.”
Some good excerpts from a 1997 Science article titled “Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy”
“The effort to simulate climate in a computer faces two kinds of obstacles: lack of computer power and a still very incomplete picture of how real-world climate works. The climate forecasters’ basic strategy is to build a mathematical model that recreates global climate processes as closely as possible, let the model run, and then test it by comparing the results to the historical climate record. But even with today’s powerful supercomputers, that is a daunting challenge, says modeler Michael Schlesinger o the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: “In the climate system, there are 14 orders of magnitude of scale, from the planetary scale–which is 40 million meters–down to the scale of one of the little aerosol particles on which wetter vapor can change phase to a liquid [cloud-particle]–which is a fraction of a millionths of a millimeter.”
Of these 14 orders of magnitude, notes Schlesinger, researchers are able to include in their models only the two largest, the planetary scale and the scale of weather disturbances: “To go to the 3rd scale–which is [that of thunderstorms] down around 50-kilometers resolution–we need a computer a thousand times faster, a teraflops machine that maybe we’ll have in 5 years.” And including the smallest scales, he says, would require 10^36 to 10^37 more computer power. “So we’re kind of stuck.””
In this article, there is a box titled “Model gets it right–without fudge factors”
Then it says:
“Climate modelers have been “cheating” for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
Gotta love it…
I’ll try to find it again, but I read an article a number of years back. Somebody took a climate model. Ran it once with one grid size. Then changed the grid size, and only the grid size, and ran the model again.
They got a completely different result.
CNN cannot afford to be out-crazied and left behind.
Maybe the good Ms is not fit to be a “journalist” ?
Translation:
“If Trump and GOP don’t go along with the “climate change” meme, we don’t want them in public office. (They might upset the apple cart)”…
PS David, I doubt if Jill Filipovic will understand what you wrote even if she does (try to) read it.
I know you included a few cartoon characters and a few cartoon videos, but, perhaps you should include a few more of the “Looneytoons”?
(Dang! I once had a link to WW2 era Bugs Buggy reading a book “Victory through Hare Power” but now I can’t find it.)
Look at her TL:
https://twitter.com/jillfilipovic
It’s a train wreck. Weather Event Daniels is a hero. There is “jus de légumes” (vegetable juice) claiming paying off the weather event starlet with your own money is a felony.
I don’t think “liberalism” will survive this nonsense. Donald Trump is killing the “centrist” left right now.
So how did Eratosthenes synchronize the timing of his shadow measurements? Watch? Phone?
His model assumed parallel sun rays from a distant sun on a curved surface. But the calculations also work with a nearby sun on a flat surface.
Climate skeptics must know the accepted scientific dogma is not evidence of anything.
Likewise a NASA moon video doesn’t prove gravity. If you accept NASA as the authority, then NASA videos prove sound can be transmitted in a vacuum (look at sounds on the moon from hammering and thrown objects).
The danger here is the appeal to authority.
[??? .mod]
tony
“Noon” (when the sun is highest in the sky each day) occurs at the same time each day at the same longitude: He did know that the two were due non-south of each other – That HOW he was able to determine the first shaft was vertical to the earth’s surface (and sun), and the second shaft was perpendicular only to the earth’s surface. Therefore, the earth’s surface is curved.
Except they are not on the same longitude and he had no way of measuring this accurately.
You make the same false assumption. If you assume the the earth is round, and the suns rays are parallel, then of course your calculations will verify it.
Except it doesn’t prove anything as the observations also verify a close sun on a flat surface.
Its funny how the author’s 2 examples of absolute objective truth are not.
There is no appeal to authority here.
The two examples are direct empirical tests which yielded results consistent with scientific theories.
Dave Scott was on the Moon. He simultaneously dropped a rock hammer and a feather from the same height. They hit the lunar surface at the same time as predicted by the theory. The notion that the Moon landings were fake is the most bat schist crazy crackhead conspiracy theory ever promulgated.
Eratosthenes experiment yielded a circumferance of the Earth very close to that measured by modern satellites. The distnce from the Earth to the Sun has also been confirmed by modern measurements and is consistent with rough estimates of Copernicus and later refined by Kepler.
Individual scientific experiments rarely yield unique results, excluding all other hypotheses.
Comparable tests of the AGW hypothesis yield results consistent with a world in which GHG emissions have already been drastically reduced.
The best thing that can be said of the climate models is that they are consistent with doubling of atmospheric CO2 yielding about 1 C of warming. This is not consistent with the Gorebal Warming narrative.
You speak of satellite measurements of the circumference of the earth. I have never read of such a measurement so I welcome your citation.
Likewise the sun distance is calculated with globe assumptions and thus is not objective evidence.
You are easily fooled. Drop a feather and hammer on earth and they fall at the same rate on earth. It isn’t proof of anything.
Moreover you exhibit the same arrogance, ignorance, and belief in authority as Warmists. When your belief system is dogma, you have abandoned objectivity and critical thinking.
A feather and a hammer only drop at the same rate in a vacuum.
Are you arguing that they evacuated an entire film studio? Do you have any idea of the engineering involved in that?
The distance to the sun is easy to measure. Take two points a known distance apart, then at the same time, measure the angle to the same spot on the sun. Calculating the difference in the angle of the two measurements gives you the distance.
Reality remains reality, even if you don’t want to believe in it.
That “experimental demonstration” (dropping a feather and metal in a very large vacuum chamber) has been done. And, yes, it did require an (already existing) multi-hundred-million dollar building-sized vacuum chamber and very elaborate preparations!
As you point out, reality remains reality, real science is duplicated regularly by real-world engineering and real-world machinery.
However, “scientific theory” requires elaborate, rare, very expensive, often impossible to provide “theoretical realities” to eliminate those pesky “real world” problems like friction, electrical resistance, gravity, chemistry, dirt, contamination, air (even nitrogen reacts sometimes!), and the butterfly effect on Hawaiian hurricanes, tsunami’s, and earthquakes.
Thus, the “perfect theoretical world” of a computer-modeled “theoretical climate” will always demonstrate some future other than what will happen in the real world.
That’s why Dave Scott did it on the Moon, rather than the Earth.
You guys are easily fooled by parlour tricks.
Dave Scott used a large heavy falcon feather. It fell in exactly the same way as it does on earth.
The only thing it proved is how easily people are deceived.
Mark, again you miss the point of a globe assumption. It’s not a matter of belief but unbiased observation without assumptions.
Even a heavy falcon feather doesn’t fall anywhere near as fast as a hammer.
The one making outrageous assumptions here is you.
Not just outrageous assumptions, but easily disproven assertions.
That depends on height, wind, etc. The point of the experiment, was that in absence of air resistance, gravitational acceleration is a constant.
Scott could have dropped a canary feather and the result would have been the same. He picked an Air Force Academy falcon feather because he was an Air Force colonel and the LEM was named Falcon.
David you miss the point.
This experiment can be replicated on earth
It was first performed on Earth by Galileo, with balls of different weights.. It’s been repeated on Earth. That’s why I referred to it as a trivial experiment.
However, it doesn’t always work on Earth due to air resistance.
The purpose of performing it in a vacuum, is that air resistance is totally negated. In a vacuum, it will work with any two objects, dropped from any height.
I should have phrased this better… The point of the experiment was that gravitational acceleration is a constant. This is most effectively demonstrated in the absence of air resistance.
David, the point is your 2 examples of obvious scientific proofs in fact do not prove what you claim – gravity and roundness.
It is always dangerous to base anything on scientific truths. Climate skeptics should know that scientific truths tend to change over time.
mark sorry you fail 101
with negated wind resistance, the mass of the object does not affect its speed
The mass doesn’t affect the gravitational acceleration. However, air resistance does affect velocity.
The “feather” has no well defined feature on that poor video feed and could well be a very heavy metal piece. It would be interesting to try to fake small parts of the Apollo evidence.
There is only direct video feed in low quality of that experiment, not cinema film, right? So only low quality images.
Superimposing the images is IMHO doable with primitive technology and that film could have been faked. The rest of the mission footage, not so much.
Any orbital platform, satellite, spacecraft, etc. measures the circumference of the Earth with each orbit. All you need are: 1) altitude, 2) velocity, and 3) elapsed time per orbit.
Wrong Dave, all orbits are elliptical, so the altitude is never constant.
It doesn’t have to be constant. It just has to be measured.
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/earth_info.html
The less elliptical the orbit, the easier the calculation.
Good to see you back on WUWT.
approximately?
this is an inferred calculation.
so it hasn’t actually been measured as you stated in your first post
There’s nothing inferred about it. It hasn’t been measured with a tape measure. But it has been measured by aircraft, spacecraft, satellites and ships.
Velocity * Time = Distance
If you measure velocity and time, you’ve also measured distance.
(Miles / Hours) * Hours = Miles
It’s an approximation because the Earth isn’t perfectly spherical.
The most accurate measurements of Earth’s radius and circumference are made by radio telescopes with Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI).
https://www.livescience.com/7329-measurement-earth-smaller-thought.html
“is the most bat schist crazy crackhead conspiracy theory ever promulgated”
1) Was that a competition?
2) Do you have the complete results?
3) What rank was achieved by the “Russia is meddling in the consensus about vaccines” conspiration theory?
Vaccines and Russian meddling are distant second and third places in the most bat schist crazy crackhead conspiracy competition.
“The notion that the Moon landings were fake is the most bat schist crazy crackhead”
Independently of whether the evidence of the Apollo mission could be faked (and that film of that experiment was perhaps the single most simple film to fake with the primitive technology of the time), assuming the data was not faked is NOT in any way an “appeal to authority”. It’s appeal to confidence in the data provider which is completely different.
Please don’t use the concepts interchangeably.
The Moon rocks aren’t from Earth and they aren’t meteorites.
Except for the moon rock given to the Netherlands which was analyzed to in fact be petrified wood. Obviously from the moon trees
Nonsense…
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/
There was never any reason to think that was a Moon rock.
At least 1/3 of the lunar samples have never been unsealed and access to the available rock samples is extremely limited.
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/
One of the primary geological objectives was to find anorthosite…
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
They were looking for anorthosite because the leading theories about the formation of the Moon suggested that the original lunar crust was rich in anorthosite.
This is why Jack Schmitt, Lee Silver and Farouk el-Baz trained the Apollo 15 crew to be field and aerial geologists.
Too fracking funny…
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apollo-moon-rocks-lost-space-lost-earth/story?id=8595858
It doesn’t matter if they’re exactly on the same longitude. He could not be very accurate in that respect. Just good enough.
It’s funny how sometimes the sun’s rays are parallel and sometimes they are directional as in eclipses.
Ah the duality of life
He didn’t need to synchronize anything.
He took both measurements at local noon.
Yes, that’s right.
thats contrary to the claim the experiment measurements were conducted simultaneously,
If they weren’t measured simultaneously then the observations are meaningless
Once again, tony adds something that was never part of the original story.
The measurements were taken on the same day, not simultaneously.
Your knowledge of physics, and heck, mere geometry is so woefully lacking that I hardly know where to begin with your re-education.
There is not and never was a need for the measurements to be taken at the exact same time. In fact if the two points aren’t on the same meridian, taking them at the exact same time guarantees that you will get the wrong anser.
Here’s just one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
The article says the measurement was taken at mid-day at two locations.
If the measurements were taken on the same parallel, then it would be critical to know the exact time at which each measurement was made. Which is why he didn’t do it that way. Unlike you, he was smart enough to spot the problem and do the experiment in a way that would work with the technology available to him.
There was no need to synchronize the timing. Each measurement was taken at noon local time.
This guy reminds me of the Fake Moon Landing guys who proclaim that if you put a pair of garden gloves in a vacuum chamber, a hand in that glove can’t move the fingers. And they are completely correct.
It’s a good thing NASA didn’t equip their space suits with garden gloves.
This is another example of a person who has been misled by the warmists’ concealment of the fact that 2/3 of the projected increase in global temperatures comes from hypothesized positive feedbacks, which is an iffy idea. She has been tricked into thinking that the projected warming is all based on the relatively solid direct warming properties of CO2.
Here’s David Evans’ 12 minute video: “The skeptics’ case,” 2/20/13:
https://youtu.be/0gDErDwXqhc
In a nutshell, Evans contends that all responsible climate change skeptics accept the existence of some global warming caused by CO2 (IOW, AGW), but do not accept its amplification by purported positive feedbacks from water vapor, as warmists do. If there is no amplification, there is no crisis (IOW, no looming “catastrophe”). Positive feedbacks are the core of the dispute, and the evidence for them is slight.
Feedback resulting from temperature increase of liquid surface water is only about 6.55% or less. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
“The observed warming has consistently tracked strong mitigation scenarios, despite the fact that very little mitigation has occurred. This is a pretty strong indication that the climate is relatively insensitive to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration… ”
err no.
you failed to win your Nobel.
try again.
It’s clear that global temperature is relatively insensitive to a doubling of CO2 because: 1) Earth cooled dramatically for 32 years after WWII, despite rising CO2, until the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched to warm mode in 1977; 2) Then slight, natural warming accidentally coincided with still rising CO2 for about 20 years, ended by a super El Nino in 1998, and 3) Then the world’s temperature stayed about the same for the next 18 years until another super El Nino spiked it again, followed by cooling, in spite of yet more growth in vital plant food in the air.
Q fracking ED
Climate sensitivity can be calculated using MODTRAN6. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
For goodness sake, where do these people get a job, at the zoo.
For the sake of animals, lets hope not.
Forget the surface temperature data, get to the core of the mechanism. Compare models to ERBE. The surface warming can not caused by retained IR if more IR is escaping to space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Filipovic
“Originally from the Seattle area, Filipovic earned a BA degree with dual majors in Journalism and Politics from New York University (NYU)[6] and a JD degree from the NYU School of Law in 2008.”
Jill is just another Artsie, with no apparent scientific education and a radical leftist and feminist bent.
Like so many of her ignorant ilk, she should not even opine on scientific and energy matters – she is in ‘way over her head.
There are so many people out there like this – utterly ignorant and full of outspoken, nonsensical opinions – one suspects they came from the shallow end of the gene pool.
As George Carlin said,
“Damn, there are a lot of really stupid people out there!”
…
“Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!”
Regards, Allan 🙂
One shouldn’t be allowed to get a law degree without knowing some science…
Law is a special field – it is where we place most of the sociopaths…
What kind of jobs are available for these people?
Lawyers get jobs helping scoundrels to steal other people’s money. Some become politicians, with the same job description.
They are self-serving and utterly deceitful, with rare exceptions.
The Law Business is the dirtiest business in Canada. Never trust a cop, a lawyer, a judge, a Crown prosecutor, or anyone else associated with the Law Business. Don’t talk to them. Tell your children, especially your teenagers, to avoid them and stay away from trouble.
We have a serious problem here in Calgary with our city cops – they are trigger-happy bully-thugs. Their governing philosophy is shoot first and cover-up later.
In 2016 there were 10 police shootings of civilians in Calgary, whereas the average for cities our size in Canada was zero. I looked into each of these shootings and concluded that few if any were justified.
Calgary does not even have a serious crime or gang problem. Our cops spend their time abusing and beating up law-abiding citizens (and occasionally shooting them). I suspect we have a much deeper problem of serious police corruption, and what we see is just the “tip of the iceberg”.
Here is one example – the cop-murder of young Anthony Heffernan:
http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-family-right-to-be-upset
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/asirt-clears-calgary-cop-in-shooting-of-anthony-heffernan
Calgary police were called by a hotel desk clerk when a guest was late checking-out.
Five cops broke into Anthony’s hotel room – he was alone, drug-addled and confused, and non-threatening. They barked out orders and when Anthony did not immediately comply, they tasered him several times and then shot him multiple times in the face, all within 72 seconds.
The same cop later shot and killed quadriplegic Dave McQueen in his wheelchair. What a man!
The killer cop should have been charged with murder and gone to trial as ASIRT (the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team) recommended. However the Crown Prosecutor refused to file charges.
This case disgraces both the Calgary Police and the Crown Prosecutor’s office. This is one more case of a Police and Crown whitewash of a murder by a trigger-happy Calgary cop.
Anthony was not threatening to anyone. No mature, professional police officer would have even been afraid in these circumstances, let alone opened fire and killed him.
This twice-killer-cop was put on a desk job, but the Chief has probably put him back on the street by now.
I have been writing about this disgraceful situation for many years – we finally got some action recently:
REVIEW OF USE OF FORCE BY CALGARY POLICE HIGHLIGHTS TRAINING GAPS, PROVINCIAL DELAYS
By Emma McIntosh, StarMetro Calgary
Tues., May 29, 2018
https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2018/05/29/more-non-lethal-weapons-wanted-after-review-into-lethal-force-spike-by-calgary-police.html
CALGARY—An independent probe of the Calgary Police Service’s use of lethal force released Tuesday calls for expansive overhauls to how Alberta regulates police and investigates when officers are accused of shooting civilians.
The findings outlined a series of recommended reforms for both the city’s police and the province, flagging gaps in training and lambasting systemic delays in the investigations of fatal confrontations with police.
_______________________________________________________________________
The problem is: Who gets to decide who doesn’t understand climate? Forget about climate change. Mainstream science has lost track of what determines climate to start with. Back to basics. We can’t afford to have a deluded “believer” as President again.
It’s political power that motivates us. Those who have it have to moderate their behavior to continue to use it, “civilization.” Those without it have no such constraint.
If anyone brings up the gravity is real argument, I merely point out the government isn’t claiming gravity is dangerous because of human caused gravity and only a gravity tax can save the planet.
Nor are they demanding that people stop using gravity.
“The observed warming has consistently tracked strong mitigation scenarios, despite the fact that very little mitigation has occurred. ”
“RCP4.5 is a strong mitigation scenario with the atmospheric CO2 concentration leveling off below 540 ppm in the second half of the 21st century.”
But we are still a long ways from the second half of the 21st century, so I don’t quite understand your point. The observed surface temps are within the range of model predictions, according to the graph you posted.
” NASA climatariat “scientist” James Hansen disproved catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”
Seems to me it depends on what your definition of “catastrophic” global warming is. Apart from that, Hansen did not disprove it, since global warming does continue. Whether it is happening at the RATE predicted by models is not relevant to whether it will become “catastrophic” eventually. The focus on particular time periods is something I don’t like about the models, or people’s interpretation of them, as if by 2100 humanity will cease to be affected by climate. I don’t know – perhaps the idea is that by then we will run out of fossil fuels and stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Does anyone know if that’s an underlying assumption?
On the other hand, rate of change is extremely important in estimating the human and environmental cost and ability to adapt. Whether a given change is going to be “catastrophic” is partly dependent on how quickly it comes.
“the nature of the measurements obtained, so that key information can be obtained” This could be interpreted to refer to procedures and instruments, not to what the measurements are.
In multi-RCP models, the observations track the bottom of the 95% band… which is populated mostly by RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 runs.
The observations track between the mean and bottom of the 95% band of Zeke’s RCP4.5 enaemble.
The observations track just above Hansen’s 1988 scenario in which CO2 stabilized at 368 ppm in 2000.
So far, the observations have tracked strong mitigation scenarios.
Unless the laws of physics change over the next ~80 years, the TCR is ~1.3 °C +/- 0.7 °C… decisively non-catastrophic.
“The observations track just above Hansen’s 1988 scenario in which CO2 stabilized at 368 ppm in 2000.”
Disingenuous at best ….
Hansen included other GHG’s in his scenarios and they contributed about half the forcing. Since they actually followed scenario C and CO2 was slightly above B the expectation would be that the trend would fall between B & C, which it did. Only considering CO2 leads you to completely misunderstand the results.
So the main reason Hansen’s result came between B and C was that methane and CFC’s were overestimated in B and even C. Here is the RC plot of the scenarios and outcomes.
From Nick Stokes ….
Apart from the recent El Nino, the observations track Hansen’s scenario C…