President Trump says our climate is “fabulous” and that “the climate, the hottest in modern human history, can change back on its own.”

Guest amateur climatologizing by David Middleton

In my daily search for stupid and/or ignorant news articles about climate change, I ran across a couple of recent “gems” from Business Insider.

Gem #1 Our “Fabulous” Climate

Trump suggests the climate may actually be ‘fabulous’ after an ominous UN report on looming disaster

Sinéad Baker Oct. 10, 2018

  • President Donald Trump on Tuesday sought to cast doubt on a UN report on climate change that had dire warnings about how little time we have to stop a global catastrophe.
  • Trump suggested that the world’s climate might actually be “fabulous” and that he’d seen reports expressing that position.
  • The UN report outlines the effects of global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
  • Trump has previously called climate change a “hoax,” and last year he announced he would pull the US out of the Paris climate accord.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday cast doubt on a United Nations report warning that we have just 12 years to curb climate change by suggesting it wasn’t more credible than reports that say the environment is “fabulous.”

[…]

Business Insider

Sinéad Baker’s qualifications as a climate scientist:

  • City, University of London, Master’s,  Investigative Journalism, 2017 – 2018
  • Trinity College, Dublin, Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), English Literature and Philosophy 2012 – 2016

Note to Sinéad: The current climate *is* fabulous.  All of the warming since the 1600’s has lifted Earth’s climate comfortably out of the Little Ice Age, which was the coldest climate of the Holocene, barely warmer than the Pleistocene Bølling-Allerød glacial interstadial in Central Greenland.

The Little Ice Age featured the coldest climatic period of the past 8,200 years, possibly the entire Holocene.

Compared to most of the rest of the Holocene, the current Fabulous-ocene could only be more fabulous if it was a bit warmer.

Holocene Climate Reconstruction, Andy May WUWT

Regarding the “dire warnings about how little time we have to stop a global catastrophe”…

UAH 6.0 vs AR4 (2007)

And who could have possibly guessed that there are only 0.6 °C of separation between a “Fabulous Climate” and “The Ice Age Cometh?”

0.6 °C of separation between a Fabulous climate and “The Ice Age Cometh?”   Yes, that is a real Science News cover from March 1975. I enlarged the date and improved the resolution. But the cover is real.

Gem #2 The Earth Will Deny Climate Science and Cool Back Down

This one is a veritable treasure trove…

Trump says he thinks the Earth will cool back down, denying his own administration’s climate change report

Alex Lockie Nov. 5, 2018

  • President Donald Trump said he hasn’t seen his own government’s National Climate Assessment, but he doubts its grim conclusions and thinks the climate can change back on its own.
  • The Trump administration’s own scientists say it’s overwhelmingly clear that humans are causing climate change and that its repercussions could ravage the US and the world.
  • But Trump said he thinks the climate, the hottest in modern human history, can change back on its own.

President Donald Trump said he hasn’t seen his own government’s National Climate Assessment, but he doubts its grim conclusions and thinks the climate can change back on its own.

[…]

The US military and other sections of the government have had to grapple with the reality of rising water levels that threaten naval bases and populations around the globe.

[…]

While Trump admitted humans “certainly contribute” to the hottest climate in modern human history, he also said he could produce scientific reports that dispute human-caused climate change.

In response to the UN report, Trump said in October that the climate may actually be “fabulous,” and not in danger.

“Is there climate change? Yeah,” said Trump to Axios.

“Will it go back like this?” Trump asked, making an up and down waving motion with his hand. “I mean will it change back? Probably, that’s what I think.”

“I believe it goes this way,” he said, again waving his hand up and down.

“We do have an impact, but I don’t believe the impact is nearly what some scientists say, and other scientists dispute those findings very strongly,” Trump said.

[…]

Trump has championed policies, like the use of coal for power, that scientists blame for releasing carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. In defense of his preference for coal, Trump has said he doesn’t want to combat climate change at the expense of US jobs.

These were some of the reasons why Trump pulled the US out of the global Paris agreement to combat climate change in 2017.

While Trump correctly stated that the Earth’s climate changes regularly over time, it does so on a geologic time scale, rather than in a matter of generations. And scientists warn that our extensive burning of greenhouse gases has set off a period of warming that has thrown the Earth’s natural cycle out of whack.

Business Insider

Alex Lockie’s qualifications as a climate scientist:

  • Georgia State University, Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Rhetoric and Composition/Writing Studies, 2012 – 2015

His LinkedIn page also says he’s an expert in writing, social media and copy editing.

Where to start?

The US military and other sections of the government have had to grapple with the reality of rising water levels that threaten naval bases and populations around the globe.

Clearly a threat to national security.  NASA + beads + ruler.

Just imagine if the Navy had to deal with the Holocene Highstand!

Arabian Gulf sea level reconstruction. Note the insignificance of modern sea level rise.

But Trump said he thinks the climate, the hottest in modern human history, can change back on its own.

“The hottest in modern human history?”  Modern humans possibly date back more than 800,000 years.  We know that several previous Pleistocene interglacial stages were at least as hot, if not hotter, than the Holocene interglacial stage.

The Sangamonian (Eemian) interglacial stage was at least 5 °C warmer than the Holocene in Central Greenland.

MIS-11 (430-400 ka) was as much as 4 °C warmer than the Sangamonian (Eeemian).

So… We can probably assume Mr. Lockie wasn’t referring to the hottest climate in modern-human history, he must have been referring to the hottest climate in modern history, which it may very well be.

 

Modern history, the modern period or the modern era, is the linear, global, historiographical approach to the time frame after post-classical history.[1][2] Modern history can be further broken down into periods:

This article primarily covers the 1800–1950 time period with a brief summary of 1500–1800.

[…]

Wikipedia

It may currently be as warm as, or even slightly warmer than, it was during the Medieval Climatic Optimum…

Ljungqvist demonstrates that the modern warming has not unambiguously exceeded the range of natural variability. The bold black dashed line is the instrumental record. I added The red lines to highlight the margin of error.

Even if it does get a little warmer than the Medieval Climatic Optimum, as I explained to Sinéad, being hotter than the 1500’s to 1800’s is a “good thing.”

Maximum Holocene glacial length occurred in the 1800’s.

Glaciers were generally advancing from the Holocene Climate Optimum (ca 9-5 ka) until the mid-1800’s.  This period is known as Neoglaciation.

Retreating Glaciers = Good

Advancing Glaciers = Bad

 

But Trump said he thinks the climate… can change back on its own.

Note to Alex: It can… and has… repeatedly…

.

It can warm all by itself, ignoring low CO2 levels…

It can cool all by itself, ignoring high CO2 levels…

While Trump correctly stated that the Earth’s climate changes regularly over time, it does so on a geologic time scale, rather than in a matter of generations.

Alex, did you not read a word I just wrote?  The Little Ice Age occurred over a matter of decades, as did the Younger Dryas glacial stadial and all of the Dansgaard–Oeschger, Heinrich and Bond events.

And scientists warn that our extensive burning of greenhouse gases has set off a period of warming that has thrown the Earth’s natural cycle out of whack.

Aeuhhh????

We don’t even break out of the noise level of “the Earth’s natural cycle”…

All of this…

May have played a small role in this…

Trump has championed policies, like the use of coal for power, that scientists blame for releasing carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. In defense of his preference for coal, Trump has said he doesn’t want to combat climate change at the expense of US jobs.

Note to Sinéad & Alex… You have jobs.

President Trump is correct on both counts.  The climate is fabulous and it will eventually cool back down and become decidedly un-fabulous.

American Museum of Natural History

FORECASTING THE FUTURE. We can now try to decide if we are now in an interglacial stage, with other glacials to follow, or if the world has finally emerged from the Cenozoic Ice Age. According to the Milankovitch theory, fluctuations of radiation of the type shown in Fig. 16-18 must continue and therefore future glacial stages will continue. According to the theory just described, as long as the North and South Poles retain their present thermally isolated locations, the polar latitudes will be frigid; and as the Arctic Ocean keeps oscillating between ice-free and ice-covered states, glacial-interglacial climates will continue.

Finally, regardless of which theory one subscribes to, as long as we see no fundamental change in the late Cenozoic climate trend, and the presence of ice on Greenland and Antarctica indicates that no change has occurred, we can expect that the fluctuations of the past million years will continue.

Donn, William L. Meteorology. 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill 1975. pp 463-464

 

What are my qualifications for criticizing Business Insider’s climate science experts?  A BS in Earth Science (Geology) earned during That 70’s Climate Science Show and 37 years experience in the Climate Wrecking Industry.

Now, I have to get back to my job and find some more oil… MAGA!

Selected References

Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204, February 2001.

Jameson, J., C. Strohmenger. Late Pleistocene to Holocene Sea-Level History of Qatar: Implications for Eustasy and Tectonics. AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90142 © 2012 AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, April 22-25, 2012, Long Beach, California.

Ljungqvist, F.C.2009. Temperature proxy records covering the last two millennia: a tabular and visual overview. Geografiska Annaler: Physical Geography, Vol. 91A, pp. 11-29.

Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010. A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler: Physical Geography, Vol. 92 A(3), pp. 339-351, September 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x

MacFarling Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins (2006), Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14810, doi:10.1029/2006GL026152.

Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005.  Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.

Oerlemans, J. Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records. Science (80-. ). 2005, 308, 675–677, doi:10.1126/science.1107046.

Pearson, P. N. and Palmer, M. R.: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years, Nature, 406, 695–699,https://doi.org/10.1038/35021000, 2000.

Royer, et al., 2001. Paleobotanical Evidence for Near Present-Day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 During Part of the Tertiary. Science 22 June 2001: 2310-2313. DOI:10.112

Rundgren et al., 2005. Last interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes from stomatal index data and their relation to climate variations. Global and Planetary Change 49 (2005) 47–62.

Tripati, A.K., C.D. Roberts, and R.A. Eagle. 2009.  Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years.  Science, Vol. 326, pp. 1394 1397, 4 December 2009.  DOI: 10.1126/science.1178296

Zachos, J. C., Pagani, M., Sloan, L. C., Thomas, E. & Billups, K. Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292, 686–-693 (2001).

Advertisements

130 thoughts on “President Trump says our climate is “fabulous” and that “the climate, the hottest in modern human history, can change back on its own.”

  1. Holocene climate has been defabulizing since the peak of its Climatic Optimum warmth some 7800 years ago.

    But it has refabulized since the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum over 300 years ago.

    The trend however is not our friend. Anything humans can do to keep the returning cold at bay is a good thing.

    • Anything humans can do to keep the returning cold at bay is a good thing.

      Fire up the engines and boilers and think about adaptation as well. Yes we can, too.

    • We must also keep increasing atmospheric CO2 to save life on Earth. Over the last many millions of years, CO2 levels have been trending towards zero since life sequesters CO2 at a faster rate than the Earth can naturally replenish it. This is a trend towards extinction and we came far too close during the last ice age. The long term danger is not a little bit of warming from more atmospheric CO2, but extinction from running out of atmospheric CO2 and without intervention by man, this could be the consequence of the next, inevitable ice age. It’s unconscionable that real dangers are so causally denied in the name of climate alarmism with no justification other than to support the UNFCCC’s repressive agenda.

      • The primary means of returning sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, is on a declining trend as the earth’s molten insides gradually cool.

        Nuclear disarmament may finally happen when we’re detonating every nuke we’ve got under the Yellowstone caldera to wake the supervolcano and ask it nicely to give the atmosphere a big carbon booster shot. Hopefully after evacuating the entire western half of North America first.

        • Using modern technology to detonate the yellowstone super volcano at a time of our choosing (after making good preparations, of course) is a much better idea than just waiting around to be surprised when it goes off on its own.

          A word to those in the science research community whose living depends on plentiful research funds — making preparations for a planned detonation is a much better way to secure future grants than the current global warming scare. The more the public learns about the probable effects of global warming, the more it realizes that, on balance, global warming is a wash or even a net plus. There is no way an unscheduled supervolcano eruption can be good news. Supervolcano eruptions affect everything, including the climate.

  2. But more importantly, ‘change on its own’ means free. Free in a money sense, free of world carbon tax directives, free of redistribution of wealth schemes at the UN, free of carbon slush funds supporting other loss of freedoms and controls in over reach government or vote buying, and free of science scare tactics with the media working to subvert public policy choice.

  3. The true amateur climatologizing is done by those who write the gems quoted in the article. They love to write about what misguided, incompetent people in scientific-looking positions preach. Their love (amor) is for their writing, NOT the truth of their writing.

    • I like to ask these people when’s the last time they read a technical paper on the subject. The answer is usually “never”. Then I ask what climate scientists they know of that support what they claim, and the answer is usually the mythical 97%. They never seem to grasp their cognitive dissonance.

  4. it’s still not as warm as estimates for the Roman Warm Period, let alone the Holocene Thermal Maximum, but we are doomed anyway?

    • Tom

      I know the Romans bitched about the miserable Scottish weather when garrisoned there. I haven’t seen any reports of them bitching about the weather in Rome being to hot to bear.

      • Definitely! As the warming in mostly at higher latitudes, places like Scotland might actually acquire a more tolerable climate. From bloody cold to sorta cold?

        • Tom
          Despite all that is claimed by the CAGW crowd, COLD is the dominant force on earth presently, and for at least the last million years. The Antarctic and surrounding area are the most dominant force.

          Cold creates barriers to atmospheric transport, therefore cold controls where the mid latitude heat ends up. As the Arctic is the weaker pole temperature wise (actual and volume of cold), a higher proportion of the heat ends up in the Arctic, it has no choice. There has been an increase in mid latitude ocean heat release since the 1980’s, that peaked in the past few years and is now declining.

          The CAGW alarmists call it Arctic amplification, due to CO2, however this has nothing to do with it. 2012 was a classic and pronounced example of cold directing where the heat goes. The Greenland melt started in May, a strong decline in SIE, and “the Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012” that peaked on the 12th August and instantaneously dissolved on the 14th.

          Beware of the cold, it controls the temperature anomalies.
          Regards

          • Oh, yeah. We had a killer frost here in suburban Austin, TX last winter. What controls what I can actually grow in the garden is mostly controlled by the lows, not the highs. And the herd of deer, which have particular tastes.

      • HotScot, I don’t know about the Romans bitching, but I do remember a lot of Scots bitching when my wife and visited in 1997 about the incredible heat wave that May. It was a little strange. We Americans heard about the heat wave on local TV, and wore shorts and T-shirts. A little uncomfortable. High while we were there was 68 F and windy. Believe me, we loved the sauna anytime of the day!
        The locals were bitching at us for not signing Kyoto, but they were also wearing T-shirts covered by shirts covered by heavy jackets. Yes, they were sweating, but I assume not as much as they wished. We Americans were quite amused (but did our best not to show it!)

      • HotScot
        My ancestors left the “miserable Scottish weather” starting around 1840. Must have been more than miserable at the tail end of the LIA.

    • “it’s still not as warm as estimates for the Roman Warm Period, let alone the Holocene Thermal Maximum”

      It is still not as warm as the temperatures in the 1930’s. At least, not in the United States. In the United States, the hottest recent period has been the 1930’s, with the warmest recent year, 2016, being 0.4C cooler than the highpoint of the 1930’s.

      There’s no need to go any farther back in history than that. Unless, of course, you think the temperature profile of the US is limited to only the US and doesn’t apply to the rest of the globe.

      The problem with dealing with Hockey Stick global charts and using them in comparisons is your results will be based on lies so therefore your results will be worthless to science.

  5. The Bachelor of Arts in journalism and literature crowd gets hired by those media outlets precisely because their scientifically illiterate mind allows them to write climate porn and CAGW propaganda with a guilt-free conscience. Their personal peer circle and social circles do not intersect with those of science ethics and methods.

    • According to PBS Newshour, 90% of the Greenland ice mass already thawed in just one month.

      Excerpt:

      While forests and grasslands burned, the Arctic melted. Greenland’s ice sheet melted at a faster rate than scientists had ever observed, with 90 percent of the mass thawing in July.

      The author was PBS NewsHour’s “Reporter/Producer on Science and Climate Change.” When they hired someone to fill that position, they chose a young girl with a fresh BA degree in Film Studies, and an emphasis on Feminist Criticism. Her senior honors thesis at UNL was entitled, “Unzipping Gender: Gender Stereotypes, Identity, and Power.”

      She’s probably the best PBS could do. They probably couldn’t find a science & climate change reporter/producer who knew any actual science, and yet was sufficiently worried about global warming to qualify for the position. And pretty enough.

      Perhaps she doesn’t know what the word “mass” means, and doesn’t know how it is different from “surface area,” but inserted the word mass because it sounds “sciencey.” Or maybe she really thought that 90% of the ice mass had melted. Who knows?

      If 90% of Greenland’s ice mass had actually melted, the oceans would have risen about 18 feet. The correct percentage was less than 0.01%. But the story is still on the PBS web site, 5½ years later, still uncorrected. Apparently none of their editors has ever realized there was anything wrong with it.

      Here’s an excerpt from another PBS report, the same day, on the same subject:

      “On July 8, 40 percent of the ice sheet had thawed. By July 12, the number had shot up to 97 percent. Any single day in July might see a quarter of the ice sheet experience melt, and about half of the sheet usually melts over the full month, Mote said. This year, 90 percent of the ice sheet melted on July 11 alone.”

      Apparently, either Pretty Young Thing got her “90 percent” figure from that report, or they both got it from the same source.

      Here’s a map, illustrating the “90 percent,” on the blog site of climate propagandist “Robert Scribbler” (a/k/a science fiction writer Robert Marston Fanney):

      https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/greenland-150-year-melt.jpg

      As you can see, the Greenland “melting” percentage was supposedly surface area, not ice mass. However, even that was grossly exaggerated. It was calculated by counting surface area “grid elements,” mapped by satellite, which were thought to contain some meltwater within the grid block: transient puddles, ponds, lakes, and streams of liquid water, on the ice sheet.

      But that doesn’t mean that 90% of the area was actually covered with liquid water. Even in the dark red “melted” areas, most of the surface was still actually solid ice. You can see that in this photo of a particularly large lake on the ice sheet:

      https://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/030/019/original/greenland-supraficial-lake.jpg

      PBS subsequently reported that their Reporter/Producer on Science and Climate Change (a/k/a feminist film critic) is a “STEM Superstar.”

      Brought to you by PBS — the same folks who assure us that “it’s okay to be smart.”

  6. “>>> Sinéad Baker’s qualifications as a climate scientist […] English Literature and Philosophy… <<<"

    It is generally the case with the most ardent "climate activists" that they have no real science background whatsoever. The fraud of "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" stands on three legs: charlatanry of dishonest "climate scientists," self-interest of bureaucracies, and total scientific ignorance the cult's acolytes.

    Trump is so right when he simply observes that the said "climate scientists" have a political agenda of their own, isn't he?

  7. “But Trump said he thinks the climate, the hottest in modern human history, can change back on its own.”
    Now wait a minute. Let’s back the truth truck up, shall we? Did Trump actually say that our climate was “the hottest in modern human history”? Because I doubt it, in which case Sinead is not only a moron, but a big fat liar as well.

    • “Let’s back the truth truck up, shall we? Did Trump actually say that our climate was “the hottest in modern human history”? Because I doubt it, in which case Sinead is not only a moron, but a big fat liar as well.”

      Trump definitely did not say “the hottest in modern human history”. That was added by the author. It’s not necessarily a lie, as long as the reader is informed of who is doing the talking. In this case it was a confused statement.

      • Anyone who read the post should understsand which passages I was quoting.

        It’s the thread title… the “headline.”

    • Now wait a minute. Let’s back the truth truck up, shall we? Did Trump actually say that our climate was “the hottest in modern human history”?

      if you read the article, you’d see that quote comes from Alex Lockie’s description of what trump said:
      •But Trump said he thinks the climate, the hottest in modern human history, can change back on its own.

      • There are actually two quotes on the same subjec in the articlet. Here is the second quote:

        “While Trump admitted humans “certainly contribute” to the hottest climate in modern human history, he also said he could produce scientific reports that dispute human-caused climate change.”

        I think this quote is subject to confusion. From the wording you can’t quite be sure that Trump is not answering a question about it being the hottest climate in modern history, and the “certainly contribute” is his answer.

        The first quote leaves no doubt it was not Trump who made the “hottest” statement. The second quote confuses the issue.

  8. Just got to love this president.
    As Ben Shapiro once (in)famously said, “He’s a mud monster, throw mud at him, and it won’t stick.”

    Thing is, Trump is “guilty” of picking his narrative and unafraid of saying that it is one-sided. The sanctimonious Alt-Eco crowd believe that they’re mouthing Pure Incontrovertible Science without a coloration in the world. Which, of course, they are not. Quite colored.

    The Mud Monster looks outside, sees a long run of pretty decent weather; he listens to news that shows ever-increasing corn harvests, wheat harvests, agricultural output of our nation. He further gets word that other countries are likewise experiencing longer growing seasons, shorter winters, lower fuel-costs-for-heating and thinks, “Well, it sounds great! Let’s go with that! Warm weather ≡ good times.”

    And he’s right.
    It does.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

  9. This just goes to show that global warming causes aberrant and callous voter behavior at the polls. Bring in the climate psychologists to study it and make executive recommendations for corrective policy actions and reeducation.

  10. DJT can say whatever he wants about climate, he will always be criticized. The foulmouthed beadles and priests of the unholy church of climate just won’t let him do his job and can’t stop ranting about things that will always change. They just don’t get it. One day they will wake up and notice that they have gone extinct. They won’t even notice that :=)

    • Non Nomen

      I had to laugh today when the BBC reported Trump’s response to the impending witch hunt of him and his family now the Democrats have a majority.

      Basically, “I have more on you guys than you have on me, bring it on”.

      But of course the BBC were snickering at how ‘pathetic’ that response was ignoring, of course, that when Kim Jong-un tried to face up to the Donald he was punched, bored and countersunk.

      I suspect their might be a slow drip of Democrat revelations released over the coming years. 👿

      • Auntie is trying to bark once more, like a badly trained dachshund, from it’s burrow.
        It is a shame that the blues are now wasting time and energy to continue their bickering with DJT instead of a respectful cooperation.

      • “I had to laugh today when the BBC reported Trump’s response to the impending witch hunt of him and his family now the Democrats have a majority.

        [Trump:] Basically, “I have more on you guys than you have on me, bring it on”.

        The Republican Congress has been requesting documents from the Executive Branch pertaining to various scandals from the Obama administration and the Trump administration, and for the most part, the Obama administration has stonewalled these requests for many years. And some of the Deep Staters in the Trump administration are continuing this document stonewalling.

        What Trump should do is order his Executive Branch to make *all* these documents available to the U.S. Congress and the American people.

        This way the American people will get to see with their own eyes the corruption and criminality of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton campaign. The Democrats will have to spend a lot of their time defending all the Obama/Hillary scandals, and won’t have as much time to mess with Trump.

        Let the light of Truth shine on the American people, President Trump. We deserve to know the truth about what our former and current government officials have been doing in our name.

  11. “and thinks the climate can change back on its own.”

    Gees, I hope not.

    The last thing we need is for temperature to dip back down to LIA levels !!

    Even with raised atmospheric plant food, the world food production would drop to famine levels.

    • It can change to similar temperatures that it has had in the past, but it will not be the same as it was. It has changed before, why would it not do so again? Ice ages come and go.

    • If you knew how fast the climate has changed in the past from a temperate to a glacial regime, it would scare your socks off!

      For example, a paleontologist found it took just two years based on alpine pollen! Examination of peat deposits indicated it took only 9 months!!

      I hate to sound like an alarmist, but that’s what the geological evidence indicates!

  12. “The Trump administration’s own scientists …”

    He means people like Gavin Schmidt who as one of the administrations ‘scientists’ should be compelled to provide testable scientific support for the insanely high ECS claimed by the IPCC. I guarantee that he will be incapable of providing anything other than wild misinterpretations of tenuous trends from dubiously adjusted data and ignorant statements of positive feedback arising from an unquantifiable origin as this is all that the government reports demonizing CO2 contain. He will be completely incapable of connecting the dots between the known and absolutely quantifiable behavior of ideal systems to the physics defying behavior of the climate system as required by the the UNFCCC to justify its existence and supported with the IPCC’s fake science. Even non ideal systems must obey the same laws of physics!

    • Speaking of physics applied to systems, Dr. Ed Berry just had his paper“Contradictions to IPCC’s Climate Change Theory” published by The American Meteorological Society (AMS). His paper can be seen at https://ams.confex.com/ams/2019Annual/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/349565.
      His paper convincingly shows how physics can be used to show that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is only minimally due to human emissions (18PPM of 410PPM ) and how the Bern model used by the IPCC to predict CO2 is nonphysical.

      • DMA, the data that drove home to me that it is mostly natural is the CERES satellite data showing the northern hemisphere explosion of CO2 during April May each year which shows up in the Keeling CO2 curve at around the same time.
        Points for me include:

        CO2 drops after this natural occurrence meaning that man’s output is more than taken up by CO2 sinks, its more likely that that the natural sinks cannot keep up with this huge natural increase as to why CO2 is increasing.

        During the Northern hemisphere winter the satellite data cannot even pick out a CO2 signature increase over the most populous cities in the world ie indistinguishable from background CO2

        more than likely as temperatures increased, more tree / undergrowth in the northern forests leads to more natural raw material available to produce more CO2 during Apr May. which is one of the reasons CO2 follows temp along with ocean out-gassing.

  13. Yup. Trump understands what 97% of climate scientists can’t, which is that internal chaotic oscillatory dynamics of the climate – mainly the ocean-atmosphere system – mean that climate does indeed change by itself. (Although it can respond to external periodic forcing.)

    • Tasfay,

      If not for the periodic forcings of night/day, the seasons and perihelion/aphelion, the planet would settle into a far less chaotic steady state. Most of the chaos arises locally in the response to change where the response chaotically modulates around an average. If you can establish the required averages by other means, then the chaos cancels out. Climate science doesn’t do this, because if they did, climate alarmism wouldn’t be a thing, as the only possible values of ECS would become less than the lower limit presumed by the IPCC.

      They want people to believe that the chaos makes it too complicated to understand and that they need to take the ‘experts’ word for how it works. What they want people to believe comes from simulations that attempt to model the chaos at a low level in the hope that the proper average behavior emerges. Unfortunately, identifying the optimum average behavior is an NP complete problem with one right solution and an infinite number of non optimum solutions. Best practices modeling would bound the solution space with a top down simulation of the required macroscopic behavior. Instead, climate modelers bound the solution space with the expected behavior and since the behavior they expect is wrong, the required behavior becomes excluded from the model.

  14. Among the things to be thankful for at Thanksgiving should be our fabulous, slightly warmer, CO2-enriched climate. But you can’t say that at the Thanksgiving table. You’d risk being lynched.

  15. The US military and other sections of the government have had to grapple with the reality of rising water levels that threaten naval bases and populations around the globe.

    In the mean time, China is spending $trillions building artificial military islands lower than Manhattan

    • Given China’s availability of cheap labor, systemic lack of regard for local impact on the reef ecology, and ample sand to dredge and deposit, those islands certainly didn’t cost Trillions of dollars. A trillion dollars is lot of money still by anyone’s standard.

        • If you’ve got a whole army that only needs to turn the screws on the jacks to keep the infrastructure above sea level, whilst your ports can handle deeper and deeper draft for your ships, what exactly is the problem for the navy ?

  16. “The climate is fabulous and it will eventually cool back down and become decidedly un-fabulous. “

    Wish you hadn’t said that – i’ll have trouble sleeping tonight.

    /grin

  17. “Fabulous-ocene”

    Fabulous!

    While the “Adjustocene” is superior in all respects when describing the abused data sources used for smudging temperatures.

    Fabulous-ocene” accurately describes the slight natural warming since the LIA. A title that accurately captures why scientists had termed Earth’s warm periods as “Optimums“.

    Not that anyone has seriously uncovered firm geological evidence defining either manniacal-ocene or Josh’s excellent title for the same.

  18. From the article: “Is there climate change? Yeah,” said Trump to Axios.

    “Will it go back like this?” Trump asked, making an up and down waving motion with his hand. “I mean will it change back? Probably, that’s what I think.”

    “I believe it goes this way,” he said, again waving his hand up and down.”

    Trump is describing the US surface temperature chart. It goes up and it goes down again.

    Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart:

    https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

    See how the temperature profile goes down until it reaches 1910, and then the profile goes up to the 1930’s, and then the temperature profile goes down to the late 1970’s, then the temperature profile goes up to 1998, then it goes down again (see UAH satellite chart), and then up again to 2016, and now it is going down again, having cooled about 1.2C from the Feb. 2016 highpoint (which is 0.4C cooler than 1934).

    So Trump has the true global temperature profile/US temperature profile in his head, and that’s why he is waving his hand up and down to mimic the movement of the temperature profile.

    That Trump is a smart fella! He knows his climate science. 🙂

  19. Why don’t the MSM expose the extreme use by China of KING coal? Lomborg has tried his best using the IEA data to show why we are beating our brains out for nothing but nobody seems to understand. Why is it so?

    Here’s China’s graph from the IEA showing 66.7% of their TOTAL energy is generated by coal, while the US only generates 17.1% . And the world only generates 0.8% of TOTAL energy from clueless solar and wind.

    Hardly anyone understands this, certainly not politicians, journalists or even some scientists. Here’s China’s energy pie graph. And China’s extreme use of coal will continue to soar until at least 2030 and ditto India and the rest of the NON OECD countries. So when will we wake up?

    https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/CHINA4.pdf

    Here’s the USA graph. https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/USA4.pdf

    • “Why don’t the MSM expose the extreme use by China of KING coal?”

      There’s nothing to expose, is there? The IPCC and alarmists have agreed that China can increase its coal usage as much as it sees fit, no matter how “extreme” their use may get, right up to the year 2030.

      China has a free pass on coal burning, as does India. Everyone knows it. It’s not a secret.

      • Yes Tom you’re correct, as I’ve explained. So I’ll ask why doesn’t the MSM expose the mitigation BS and fra-d of Paris COP 21?
        That’s Dr Hansen’s claim and Pres Trump also understands it, so does Lomborg and even the latest Royal Society & NAS report tells us stopping all co2 emissions today wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to temps for 1,000 years. That’s STOPPING ALL co2 emissions TODAY.
        And co2 levels wouldn’t return to 280 ppm for many thousands of years after that time. That is what they actually believe.
        So do you think that Joe public knows about any of these claims? I’ve tried and most people haven’t got a clue.

        • I don’t imagine the public knows many of the details of these climate deals, and I agree the MSM ought to be giving the public those details, but the MSM is a political organization and does not do what an unbiased news media would do. They are partisan Democrats and they are not going to write stories that detract from the CAGW narrative.

          The MSM is not a fair judge of the truth. They see through biased eyes and report biased stories.

    • It didn’t hire them. They are left over Obama people. Had Trump fired them as would have been preferable the media would have come unglued and labelled him anti-science.

      • One can argue that the green-agenda “hires” were well before Obama.
        The names Al Gore and John Kerry come to mind. The US agencies control a lot of what gets studied (research). This is done with a “Request for Proposal” (RFP). An agency, say the US National Science Foundation, can frame an RFP such that a university researcher (or team) – and the PhD student(s) that do the grunt work – will design a study to examine the issue explained in the RFP. If the team’s proposal does not meet the requirements, it does not get funded.
        Al Gore came into the US House in 1977 and became VP in 1993.
        John Kerry became a US Senator in 1985. John Heinz III was a US Senator beginning in 1977 (same as Gore), but a Republican. Kerry met Teresa Heinz at Earth Day in 1990. He married her in 1995. Both have been involved in environmental issues.
        It is a personal opinion but I think Teresa is a whole lot smarter than he is.

        Especially as Vice President, Gore could influence the entire governmental research efforts.

  20. Demonstrating yet again how “journalists” are poorly educated and unskilled at their profession. That is, if their profession isn’t propagandizing.

    David, I hope you send them copies of you investigations.

  21. “Sinéad Baker Oct. 10, 2018
    President Donald Trump on Tuesday sought to cast doubt on a UN report on climate change that had dire warnings about how little time we have to stop a global catastrophe.”

    The “dire warnings” were written by politicians with help from devout activists.
    It is not science, nor a pending catastrophe! It is a political ply to grab larger amounts of taxes, destroy capitalism and to establish a global tyranny ruled by condescending narcissist elites and other despots.

    “Alex Lockie Nov. 5, 2018
    President Donald Trump said he hasn’t seen his own government’s National Climate Assessment, but he doubts its grim conclusions and thinks the climate can change back on its own.
    The Trump administration’s own scientists say it’s overwhelmingly clear that humans are causing climate change and that its repercussions could ravage the US and the world.
    But Trump said he thinks the climate, the hottest in modern human history, can change back on its own.
    President Donald Trump said he hasn’t seen his own government’s National Climate Assessment, but he doubts its grim conclusions and thinks the climate can change back on its own.

    The US military and other sections of the government have had to grapple with the reality of rising water levels that threaten naval bases and populations around the globe.”

    A) That report was not written by Trump’s Administration nor even by the American Government.
    It was written in defiance of Trump’s Administration by embedded parasites dependent upon the CAGW scam for their excessive salaries.

    B) No part of America’s military or any section of American Government or any part of the world is experiencing threatening rising ocean levels caused by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

    Lockie’s claims are all baseless false strawmen.

    Both alleged authors have used very excessive artistic license to create their delusional fantasy land. They’ve gone far past fiction and entered fairy tale land.

    Perhaps the most horrifying portion of their frightening fairy tale is where they consider themselves and other eco-loons heroes sacrificing all while performing valiant deeds. for example, preaching that others should turn off their heat, walk or ride bicycles instead of driving, consume hand whipped peanut butter banana smoothies, soy drinks and sad simulated burgers made from soy compost.

  22. The 2020 presidential race will be in part, a platform on climate change by the Democrats. This is just a pure gift to DJT who gets the CAGW narrative, and can easily convey that message to the masses who already know something don’t add up with the this dead horse. Even better would be if Big Al would throw his hat in the ring again and promise a huge national carbon tax for the country. It would be so wonderful to see daily tweets from Trump, just pillorying the Democrats with basic climate science facts and asking everyone who they would rather vote for: someone proposing ridiculous carbon taxes and limiting fair access to energy for everything from heating/cooling their house and driving their car for work/pleasure, or someone pledging to do the opposite and grow the economy and jobs. I don’t think many, other than the same city folk who will vote Democrat no matter what, is going to vote for high carbon taxes. Bring it on.

  23. What an incredibly great breath of fresh air. To realize that CO2 does not warm anything detectably and that CO2 is a serious plus to the environment and mankind. As the planet has spent most of the last 600 million years well above current temperatures and clearly life has thrived, how can warmer climes be bad?

  24. David Middleton:

    Thank you for your very good article. Also thanks for the many competent comments.

    I am in Thailand, where it is 30° C during the day. There are a remarkable number of tourists on the beach, coming from all over the world where it is much colder.

    There are few if any tourists heading north into the cold and snow, with the exception of skiers and snowboarders. It is obvious that humanity prefers warm temperatures.

    Furthermore, excess winter mortality rates prove that the world is colder than optimum.
    There are no significant excess summer mortality rates.

    It is also abundantly clear that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are not dangerously high, but rather are dangerously low, too low for the continued existence of life on earth. More CO2 is beneficial, it is that simple.

    It is also abundantly clear that climate is insensitive to increasing CO2 concentrations. The only measurable impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is improved crop yields, which are entirely beneficial. Increasing atmospheric CO2 may result in some minor warming, which will also be net beneficial to humanity and the environment.

    I dictated this note on my phone, and apologize for any typos.

  25. We are in fact living in a golden age. Never before in human history have crop yields been so high, or so many humans been well nourished. Grain crops are so high we turn a signficant proprtion into fuel because we just can’t eat it all. A combination of a warm climate, high CO2 levels, better farming methods and the application of science have brought us to this happy state, but you wouldn’t think so if you listen to the prophets of doom. Personally I think another degree and a doubling of CO2 will bring us to a utopia never dreamed of. We will be able to banish starvation and malnutrition from the planet, and the human race will be able to be gainfully employed in making the world a better place for all. The wealth generated by this cornucopia, will enable us to clean up the environment and save all the threatened species from extinction.

  26. David ( the self declared amateur) attacks journalists who simply point out the facts by citing their lack of scientific credentials while upholding Trump’s “intuitive” alternative science with an array of cherry picked data.
    Could David present his ‘evidence’ for peer review like every good scientist does instead of slinging mud in the pseudo scientific ether ?.

    • Oh? So since David Middleton did not have an imprimatur from your church, it is a bad argument? The duplicate comment filter is still acting up.

    • The post was filled with examples… Try reading it. If there’s something I wrote, you think is wrong, quote the exact passasge and we can discuss. Otherwise…

      • Ahhh ,yes David, as I said,cherry picked examples. In typical amateur style you’ve ignored the evidence to the contrary. Since you disagree with the combined global scientific view, go argue with the big boys in the real world rather than shouting taunts from the parapet.
        Btw,I like the Pythonesque reference to your bunker syndrome.

        • Maybe you missed this…

          The post was filled with examples… Try reading it. If there’s something I wrote, you think is wrong, quote the exact passasge and we can discuss. Otherwise…

        • To WTF:

          WTF is the matter with you?

          I have studied this subject completely independently from David Middleton and have reached very similar conclusions to David.

          Reading your comments, I conclude that you are a troll. You have displayed no intellect and no honesty.

          I suggest that you go back to WhereverTF you came from.

          • I suggest that you go back to WhereverTF you came from.

            How comes that Midden Heap came to my mind reading this?

    • You don’t have to be a certified expert with a university degree to call a spade a spade.
      “What did you say? The traffic light is red? I don’t care because you are not a cop. You can’t know what a red light means.”

      • Non
        So you disregard what the vast majority of scientists are in agreement upon ?
        Great, then the burden of proof is with you, posting stuff here is meaningless.
        You need to leave the comfort of this bubble and actually present some peer reviewed evidence.

        • Whiskey Tango Foxtrot… do you have any specific arguments? Or are you just here to contribute generic babble?

          If you disagree with something, quote the exact words you disagree with and explain why you think it’s wrong.

          • David,
            You refuse to engage with my “specific argument”, which is that ALL of your posts are such an insult to the scientific method and that you can’t engage with the scientific community.
            Instead, because your efforts are ignored, you attack science itself, eg peer review, data collection, research funding ,etc, culminating in conspiracy theories.

            This is why you are stuck in this sheltered workshop conducting experiments with swallows and coconuts.

          • Well DUH…Climate Science is actual Science because it has the word Science in it … DUH
            Isn’t it filled with Lectrolytes or something that plants crave

          • So… Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is just here to provide generic babble.

            Alpha Mike Foxtrot Whiskey Tango Foxtrot…👋

        • You seem to be immune against any form of argument or fact. Have you read at all what David has posted here? I doubt it. Strongly.
          You seem to be completely unaware of the corruption and deception that is associated with”peer reviewed” studies.
          So you are either ignorant or you like occasional deception and corruption.
          https://www.nature.com/articles/546033a
          I do assume that reading is some sort of chore for you, so look at this:

          • More than likely he is in denial of any data that goes contrary to his climatology related beliefs. Mess with his orthodoxy too much and he is likely to go full nutzi on you

  27. I haven’t read past the first few comments, not least because I agree with them in general. That said, one chart did worry me, as a layman (layperson?). It’s the chart showing temperature anomaly in the modern era (Sang…(Eemian))which appears to show carbon dioxide concentration leading the temperature change. Am I misreading this?

    • I should have included figure numbers.

      Are you referring to this?

      The last Pleistocene interglacial stage is called the Sangamonian in North America, Eemian in Europe and MIS-5e in marine isotope stage lingo.

      The Sangamonian is not the modern era. It was about 130,000 to 120,000 years ago and CO2 clearly lagged behind temperature.

      Or are you referring to this?

      This is the modern era. CO2 also clearly lagged behind temperature by about 150 years.

        • I haven’t always been consistent in the direction of the x-axis. When it’s in years before present (BP), Excel defaults to the most recent time being towards the left. When it’s in calendar years, Excel defaults to the most recent time being towards the right.

          Most modern era time series are in calendar years. Most paleo-reconstructions are in years BP (generally 1950).

      • The last Pleistocene interglacial stage is called the Sangamonian in North America, Eemian in Europe and MIS-5e in marine isotope stage lingo.
        Perhaps the correct interglacial will be called the sanctimonious

  28. I found out today that while there are people who, quite rightly, believe we live on a “globe” earth and openly ridicule flat-earthers, they ardently believe CO2 traps “heat” (LOL) which causes global warming.

  29. David,
    A truly fabulous post, many thanks.
    Since Donald Trump became president I have been a bit disappointed that he has said little about climate change. But that seems to have changed with a number of interviews.

    Pretty everything he has said about climate change is spot on (sadly, unlike many of his statements on other subjects). Like all serious sceptics, he does not deny the reality of climate change. I would say he is right in the middle of mainstream sceptical opinion.
    Thank you President Trump! And please, please get elected for a second term. The world desperately needs to know the truth about climate change.
    Chris

  30. “Climate is fabulous” – I wonder if someone alerted Trump to derivatives of my many harangues on “The Great Greening ^тм” and my “Garden of Eden Earth^тм” by 2050 with peak population at ~9B, bumper harvests, abundant resources and global prosperity? This is the scenario that the Totes are desperate to head off, or to run to the head of the parade and take credit for. They know that the ‘Garden’ spells the end for marxy sparxy and Malenthusiasm Dystopes who will shrink back to the odd mental patient with a sandwich board.

  31. Okay, here is a practical solution for current events policy problems. Bring in 50,000 Latin American immigrants to Alberta and have them drive large oil trucks across the border in 2-mile round trips to move captive Canadian oil across the border and into various crude oil pipelines in North Dakota. They can escape their caravan problems and get free health care in Canada too.

  32. David Middleton, thank you for a really superb posting. You offer a well-reasoned rebuttal to each of the alarmist claims in the Business Insider articles that you addressed, supported with simple-to-understand, science-based graphs of data. Most impressive that you placed IPCC/alarmist data in juxtaposition with what time and scientific observations have revealed has, and is, actually happening.

    Super kudos to you for this work and making it readily to all truth-seekers. It is now part of my “go to” reference articles for debating the issue of climate change with others.

  33. The second figure in this post, re ‘temperature anomaly’ over the last 12k yrs, shows ‘jerks’ in the trace that correspond to events in the Holocene, as is indicated in boxes. The ‘jerks’ indicate possible abrupt change, but little more than that. However what may seem a somewhat normal changes in trend, are in reality the cataclysmic events that geology shows they have been.
    Correlating across other evidence, particularly archaeological and tectonic, a very different picture emerges. Climatic changes were very likely a secondary residual effects (though loss/gain of polar ice may be a contributing effect).
    See correlations here related to that figure: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/11/13/some-correlations-to-the-past/
    Note the correlation to the Eddy cycle as a major influencing force (source unknown).

  34. Climate Study:

    “Hoffman et al. compiled estimates of sea surface temperatures during the last interglacial period, which lasted from about 129,000 to 116,000 years ago. The global mean annual values were ~0.5°C warmer than they were 150 years ago and indistinguishable from the 1995–2014 mean. This is a sobering point, because sea levels during the last interglacial period were 6 to 9 m higher than they are now….”

    “…reconstructions of [last interglacial period] global temperature remain uncertain, with estimates ranging from no significant difference to nearly 2°C warmer than present-day temperatures. …”

    Study cite:
    Regional and global sea-surface temperatures during the last interglaciation
    Jeremy S. Hoffman1,*,†, Peter U. Clark1, Andrew C. Parnell2, Feng He1,3

    Science 20 Jan 2017:
    Vol. 355, Issue 6322, pp. 276-279
    DOI: 10.1126/science.aai8464

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276

  35. I’d say 97% of the time, the weather is certainly fabulous. If worked out year after year, that makes the climate pretty fabulous, too. I think President Trump is right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *