Good News on Climate Change! We’re Safe. We’re Adaptable. Six points for Discussion.

Friends of Science writes: Is there a climate crisis? Is there a 97% ‘consensus’ on this? We look at the science and offer six points for your consideration and discussion:

1) Climate cycles between warm and cold

2) Warming benefits northern countries

3) CO2 enhances plant growth and crops

4) Sea levels change due to many factors

5) Warm climatic periods have more stable weather

6) Warming has economic benefits; “Climate Action” would cost more than doing nothing

Advertisements

77 thoughts on “Good News on Climate Change! We’re Safe. We’re Adaptable. Six points for Discussion.

  1. My beef with all this is……it’s only been ~1 degree

    …that’s not enough to do much of anything..if anything at all

    I don’t see where the “climate” has gotten warmer…colder…nada…squat

    …so why write something up saying warm is good?…and feed them

  2. Latitude,

    Right, and the average human cannot sense a temperature change of 1 °C even if it happens over the course of one minute.

    • I’d point out that here in Utah, we can have a temperature range of over 30 degrees in a single day during the summer. At the moment, there is a 20 degree difference each day. One degree isn’t going to make much difference.

      • But one degree adds more ”energy” to the system and this leads to stronger storms, catastrophic droughts, wild fires never seen before, massive heat waves, massive cold snaps, great floods, not to mention fewer insects, sharks that swim to the left, rodent plagues, mass migration, too many male turtles, coral death, more anger, chocolate extinction etc etc. Need I go on?
        It’s all true I tells ya. Look at the news!

          • It’s “sharks with frickin’ laser beams on their heads”, thank you very much.

        • Peter Venkman: …or you could accept the fact that this city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
          Mayor Lenny: What do you mean, “biblical”?
          Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor. Real Wrath-of-God type stuff!
          Peter Venkman: Exactly.
          Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
          Egon Spengler: 40 years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
          Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
          Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

        • “But one degree adds more ”energy” to the system and this leads to stronger storms…”

          Not on planets that operate by the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

          Storms are driver by temperature and density differences. If everything warms by one degree, then the difference is no different.

        • Mike, don’t forget the latest scare: glacier eating bacteria that turn black, cover the surface of glaciers and will lead to cataclysmic sea level rise as all THE GLACIERS ON EARTH melt in a single month! And the band played “woe is me!”.

          • Oddly enough, my one visit to a glacier (Franz Josef, NZ) showed me that a glacier’s terminus can be (at least in part) BLACK! Aaagh! Doom is upon us!

      • In Southern and Central Victoria ( 37degrees south) the southern most mainland state of Australia, in January 2019 our peak summer month, the temperature fell 34 c from 45 c to 11 c in about two hours
        We did notice that as 11 c is considered a cold day maximum in our winter

  3. We haven’t seen such benign climate as we have had the last 100 years as we have seen the last 99% of the last 2.6 million years. This, along with fossil fuel use has led to the 7.5 billion population on the planet due to this very stable climate. Which was actually warmer the majority of the last 10,000 years so I don’t understand where there is any credibility of any catastrophic events caused by global warming or climate change due to a degree or two of warming out of the LIA. It is a long term cooling trend we need to really take seriously and be fearful of.

    • The reason why there is ‘any credibility’ is because there are a lot of stupid people out there, and mendacious villains who will take advantage of that fact. For their own material and financial benefit; one name springs to mind.

      And yes, you’re right: if we start to see a long term cooling initiate then we really should pay attention. But pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere won’t help to mitigate any cooling, for the same reason it doesn’t much promote warming. I wonder when the people will wake up to this giant scam.

  4. The Friends of Science is an advocacy group started by a bunch of oilfield geologists. Although its detractors accuse it of being funded by the petroleum industry, it has great difficulty attracting such funding.

    The alarmists assure us that skeptics are the paid shills of big oil. I am having trouble finding anyone who is at the end of that particular rainbow.

    • In contrast, CB, are the millionaire scientists, rich off government and NGO funds. There is no hiding their dependency on the public till. That makes their motivation and their results extremely questionable to begin with, just as Eisenhower warned. Now factor in the communist push to infiltrate our institutions of education and governmental leadership and the whole picture develops.

      • It’s interesting that people who are very much concerned about the debilitating effect of money on scientific integrity are only afraid of money that they perceive as coming from one side. When sceptics talk about the influence of grant money, all of a sudden scientists are angels who would never let funding impact their science.

        And nefarious, dark corporate forces are aligned against taking action on the climate. I guess somehow the government will spend TRILLIONS of dollars, and corporations won’t benefit from any of the new spending.

      • Hi,
        Can you name a single millionaire scientist who got rich off government and NGO funds?
        They don’t have to be in Climate Science but could be in any field of science. There are a number
        of scientists who have gotten rich by starting their own companies, or by writing popular books
        and becoming media personalities but I doubt you would find a single one who has become a
        millionaire from government funding alone. The majority of funding goes towards paying for the cost of research and not the scientists’ salary.

        • I know 5 millionaires and multimillionaires from purely government contracts off the top of my head. Probably more if I spend a few minutes thinking about it.

        • Off the top of my head Jagdish Shukla cleared $700K or so per year double dipping and paid his wife and kids and other relative $100’sK. Daniel Alongi defrauded the government of Australia over $500k in addition to his normal salary. James Hansen won many prizes taking his wealth well into the $millions.

        • Oh year, the heads of several US government labs earn close to or over $1 million per year. They are not government employees but rather contractors. One example was Dan Arvizu who headed NREL.

          I’d guess there are dozens just in the US.

        • Percy, these guys receive a stipend every time they make an appearance to speak. If they don’t have something shocking to say, they will never get booked. Their take on a hot global topic is the only ware they have that they can sell. Please reread President Eisenhower’s farewell address to America and take note of the warnings he gave.

          • Suzuki is a failed geneticist who says himself that he isn’t a scientist. Apparently he has transcended that field and moved on to God-like status as a bullshit artist.

          • Not all government funding is direct from government. Can be indirect via government backed institutions like CBC.

            And more recently the $600 million government handout to the press. Have to pay for friendly op-eds to mansplain why trudope was right and everyone else simply “experienced things differently.” #lavscam

            Only now the OECD has shot the latest excuses down in flames and the press is scrambling to cover their asses.

      • Agreed. Friends of Science advocates for empirical evidence and the scientific method. They pursue these objectives with a budget of US$ 110,000/yr. They punch far above their weight. Just think what they could do with some additional financial muscle!!!!

    • If you go to the link friends of science from commiebob it takes you to a Wikipedia page and the state they are funded by big oil with a few footnotes. If you follow the links in the footnotes it brings you to an article where a member of the friends of science deny contributions from big oil and no suggestion that they get funding by big oil. The other link is a useless link to phil Platt. So no evidence is given is that they get any money from big oil. This is the common tactic of the alarmists. To me it gives them no credibility.

      • I am not a member of the Friends of Science but I am a friend of the Friends…

        They do not receive much if any funding from oil companies, and do a great job on a very small budget.

        One thing about global warming alarmists – they are very loose with the facts, on all fronts.

        The warmists cannot win scientific arguments, so they routinely go for slander, libel and intimidation.

    • Agreed. Friends of Science advocates for empirical evidence and the scientific method. They pursue these objectives with a budget of US$ 110,000/yr. They punch far above their weight. Just think what they could do with some additional financial muscle!!!!

  5. It is fairly clear that James Hansen’s runaway feedback, Instant Venus model, is close to any reasonable definition of impossible. Barring those sorts of consequences, the mild warming that has occurred since 1975 is beneficial, so any schemes to “alleviate” a positive effect are not themselves beneficial.

    • Tom, where will enough CO2 come from to raise the atmospheric percentage from .04% to over 90%? Hanson should have 0% credibility after that fantasy.

      • Yet, it’s common to hear it repeated. In fact, you can hear theories that are completely made up in the mainstream. I listened to a podcast by Josh Clark called End of the World. Otherwise, a good series but the climate nonsense. In addition to positioning Hanson’s theory as an existential threat (and ignoring a mile of ice on top of Canada, Chicago, Boston, etc) he made up some crazy theory (or someone did) that the earth’s climate is maintained by a CO2 modulation controlled by plate tectonics. People are consuming this drivel and repeating it like it’s fact at cocktail parties in order to sound smart.

    • Yes, the whole idea of climate feedback is based on a misappropriation of Bode’s LINEAR feedback amplifier analysis. Hansen’s original errors were made far worse by Schlesinger as he attempted to fix what was not fixable. None the less he had to try as it was Hansen’s erroneous concept of massive amplification by positive feedback that quickly gained traction as the holy grail necessary to justify the formation of the IPCC. Schlesinger may have been an accomplished mathematician and claimed that he was the foremost climate feedback experts, but he didn’t have a clue about how amplifiers worked. His plausible, yet erroneous mathematical ‘fix’ was to conflate the feedback factor with the feedback fraction, thereby assuming unit open look gain in one place, while also assuming non unit, non linear open loop gain amplifying W/m^2 into temperature which for all intents and purposes completely invalidated the analysis.

      • Christopher Monckton brilliantly skewered Hansen’s misuse of feedback analysis. Of course, he did what Hansen should have done. Monckton consulted an actual systems expert.

        I can’t think of any part of CAGW that rests on a solid scientific foundation.

  6. All the models show that only greenhouse forcing (well mixed greenhouse gases minus water vapor) causes tropospheric negative lapse rate feedback. The radiosonde & satellite data show the opposite is happening.
    End of debate!

  7. This is the sort of thing that causes Alarmists to go apeshit, so I love it. Rub their noses in it real good. How do you like us now, eh Greenies?

    • Bruce Cobb

      Try to get an alarmist to watch this video. They won’t, and if they do they will scream “Big Oil funded”. “97% is true” and “fake graphs”.

      There are two universal truths the layman can understand and alarmists find impossible to refute.

      1) No one has ever demonstrated by empirical means that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.

      2) The only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened by 14%, 70% of which is directly attributable to increased atmospheric CO2.

      Nothing else has ever been directly attributed to increased atmospheric CO2.

      I was a ‘climate believer’ until I asked the first question and scoured the internet for studies some years ago. Every time I found an ‘answer’ I copied its title into Google and added ‘debunked’ after it. And every single time I found credible science wrecked the study.

      But I didn’t stop there, I questioned informed people, guest contributors on WUWT, notalotofpeopleknowthat and other blogs to test my findings and, independently, they were generous enough to carefully explain, in layman’s terms, what was wrong with the studies.

      I’m not a scientist but I damn well know that if a theory tells me an Internal Combustion Engine will run on tomato soup, and empirical experiments running an ICE on tomato soup prove it can’t, then I have to go with the empirical evidence because I must get to work in the morning.

      A rudimentary grasp on science tells me that no matter how perfect the theory, if it doesn’t work in practise, it’s not a good theory after all. And whilst the theory might work once in practise, it has to be repeatable, time and time again before it can be judged a reliable theory.

      Even then, human nature naturally revisits theories once they become commonplace, minute by minute, and natures chaotic environment ensures that if there is a flaw in a perfect theory, it will be exposed, eventually.

      • I agree with you about alarmists not watching this video.

        Just the other day, I was at a university party (half scientists and >90+% liberal) and without fail I got people to laugh when I joked that I couldn’t wait to take the high speed train to Hawaii.

        It might not be very significant, but at least in that humorous moment, there is a realization on their part that the GND is somewhat ridiculous.

      • C Bob – Maybe the 14% greener has something to do with the other GHG…H2O? How was it empirically determined that 70% of the more green is due to CO2…seems at odds with your first point?

        • Meiggs

          Of the 14% increase in biomass accumulation rate some 70% is attributable to CO2 fertilization and the rest to an increase in temperature (longer growing season in the temperature zones).

          The fertilization value comes from research on plants in enclosures with and without enhanced CO2 concentration. It is trivial to demonstrate the positive effect of CO2 on the plant growth rate. They also use less water with that increase. That leaves more soil moisture for use by other plants.

          Everything about more CO2 is a win. The planet will eventually run out of CO2 and everything will die, but that is a long way off. The cause will be CO2 sequestration in limestone.

      • “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.”

        Thomas Huxley

    • Running a car on tomato soup?
      Are ya daft man?
      Everyone knows you need to use mulligatawny.

  8. #2. Warming benefits northern high latitude countries, while tropical temperatures remain unchanged.
    Better, no?

    • Pop Piasa

      Are high latitudes ‘higher’ than northern latitudes?

      Northern and Southern latitudes and the perception of ‘high’ and low are a human construct, surely. Nature doesn’t distinguish between high and low on a planetary scale, does it?

      The planet is just a ball (roughly speaking) bobbing about in space. Is there a high side to the moon, Jupiter, Venus……..etc.?

    • More importantly, cooling harms high latitude and high altitude regions. For example, during the last ice age, nearly all of Canada was covered by kilometers of ice. When this inevitably happens again, Mexico will buy the wall from us to keep Americans and Canadians from flooding into their country.

      Even as recently as the end of the LIA, the impending doom from advancing glaciers was all too apparent and Monks were dispatched to pray for them to stop. Apparently, it worked too well, so now they’re praying for them to come back. Not long before that (in geologic history), they prayed for spring to return, not knowing for sure whether it would. Those prayers apparently worked too.

      https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120810-glaciers-vatican-prayer-alps-science-gobal-warming/

      • That may not be all bad.
        DJT’s successor (Pence?, Cruz?, Haley? ) will have a much better chance if Chicago, NYC, and Boston are under 2 miles of ice in 12 years. That only leaves LA to worry about.

        (That is of course, unless the Dems allow enough “undocumented migrants” into CA, AZ and TX so that through the next census those states has more “residents” than all of the other states combined, and then permanently control the House . Let’s not even talk about HR-1.)

        Last year I would have followed that last paragraph with an /sarc tag.

  9. #2. Warming benefits northern high latitude countries, while tropical temperatures remain unchanged.
    Better, no?

    Yes: I was thinking the same thing. The tropics have not warmed right???

    • mario lento

      Yes: I was thinking the same thing. The tropics have not warmed right???

      But I’m not sure we can make a statement saying the tropics have warmed or cooled. After all, what do we mean by the tropics. I’m fairly certain ‘the tropics’ is a circumferential area around the globe which includes a great deal of ocean area.

      Nor do I suspect the land area of the tropics is well provisioned with temperature sensors. Thereafter, innumerable other questions – who are the custodians of the data; are the sites reliable; are the sites numerous; is the data homogenised etc. etc.

      More questions than answers but ‘climate scientists’ dictate that global temperatures can be determined down to two decimal places. The concept is ridiculous.

      • Hot Scot, in the open seas, seawater surface has a maximum temperature of 31C because at that point evaporation and convecion with its cooling effect limits the temperature. Other effects also arise including formation of sun-reflecting clouds earlier in the day as the limit is approached approaced and cooling thunderstorms are promoted.

        Read some of Willis Eschenbach’s thermostatic or heat engine governor effects. Also read about Hadley atmospheric circulation and ocean currents that drive cycles that move the heat poleward (the hotter, the more energetic the cycles). Polar temperature enhancement (at least the Arctic one) is caused by these flows. Yeah, the tropical zone is widely believed to not vary much in temperature. Indeed, the temperature range in Lagos Nigeria is the same as I experienced there in the 1960s.

    • “The tropics have not warmed right???…”.
      According to HADCRUT4 the tropics have warmed about 0.6C since 1950, the date at which the IPCC claim human emissions totally replaced natural climate forcings:
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4tr/from:1950/plot/hadcrut4tr/from:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut4tr/from:1950/to:1985/trend
      For about 35 of the 70 years there was temperature stasis, the period of warming coincided with a drop of about 6% in tropical (mostly ocean) cloud cover:
      http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif

  10. Terraforming earth in a benign way is surely a good thing on the road to colonise the solar system.

    Earth is deprived of CO2 and at the end of the Holocene its fortuitous that the burning of fossil fuels has come just at the right time to keep the planet green.

    Unfortunately CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.

  11. Having noted for years that warmistas have been not just wrong about every single prediction they make, but completely and 100% shockingly wrong, as in the opposite of anything they predict is nearly guaranteed to happen instead, I have to say I am somewhat worried amount the recent ramping up of the shrillness of the alarmism.
    If their record holds, momma nature is gonna spank them butt-hard, and soon.
    Will global milding persist, or will we get an abrupt shift?
    If we do, it for darn sure will not be towards beneficent warming, but, I am afraid, towards disastrous and sudden cooling.
    As we have seen tis past Winter, severe cold weather and outlandishly heavy snow are not just weather reports.
    People die.
    Something very odd about that solar irradiance chart.
    And it has been an unusually long time since a major volcanic eruption.
    Common sense says that the utter wrongness of every warmista prediction is simply a coincidence, not evidence of an all powerful and omniscient Gaia with a wicked sense of humor.
    Still…

  12. This is kind of 5th Grade level science treatment of complex subject.
    That said, AOC and her millenial ilk would certainly flunk it.

    #areyousmarterthana5thgrader

  13. I agree with the video’s points, but, as pointed out, if they are mainly involved in the oil sector, the totes will simply dismiss them out of hand, even though they are highly qualified as geologists to speak on earth climate.

    Heck, back when no one even gave climate worries a moment’s thought, I studied paleoclimate as a student in the 50s as part of Historical Geology. Being at the U of Manitoba, which sits on the floor of former glacial Lake Agassiz, I also mapped part of one of the temporary shorelines in north central Manitoba that developed after a series of lake level drops toward the end of the life of the lake and I also discovered the “lost” buried channel of the Missouri River when it flowed north into Saskatchewan and made an unexpected turn eastward into Manitoba during the Eemian interglacial over 100,000yrs ago. It was 100m below the present prairie level.

    Today’s Missouri came into being when a small river that flowed into the Mississippi “captured” the north-flowing main stream of the Missouri and established it as a larger tributary of the Mississippi. How’s that for some neat geological history and climate change! Maybe that’s what “makes me from Missouri” when some one BSs me about Catastrophic AGW.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_capture

  14. Which of the following goals is affordable and achievable?
    1. adapting to weather conditions and changes in climate
    2. making significant changes to the climate of every inhabited area

    We have ample proof of the ingenuity of people as well as their ability to thrive in hotter climates. With the provision of adequate water, trees and plants also thrive in hotter climates. Money spent on adapting gives a good return. Money spent on a futile effort to create the ideal climate for every area is money squandered.

  15. I think everyone is missing the intended audience which are those people that neither understand the science nor question the MSM.

  16. Regarding the Greenies, ” None so blind as those who do not wish to see, and none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear ”

    Or while preaching to the converted may make you feel good, but it will not convince the already committed ones. They will stay with the “Cause”. So we have to work to prove to them that their “Cause is incorrect. ”

    We need to ask the Chinese to tell us how their Re-education camps reallywork, Hi.

    MJE

  17. The great sadness in life is that there are people who are otherwise quite intelligent who buy the hoax hook line and sinker. One of the public figures who has been hoaxed is the well known animal lover Sir David Attenborough. He is not global warming scientist, but cannot resist bring the future catastrophie of global warming into all of his more recent animal programmes.

  18. “But one degree adds more ”energy” to the system and this leads to stronger storms…”
    ≠=========
    Adding energy to a system has zero effect on the amount of work (storms).

    Think of an old style paddle wheel. You cannot make this turn by placing it in a lake, no matter how high the lake. You need to place the paddle wheel in a river where the water is moving from a higher elevation to a lower elevation.

    The same is true with storms. No matter how hot you make the atmosphere you will not get any stronger storms. You have to increase the difference in energy between the tropics and arctic, which is the opposite of what is happening.

Comments are closed.