This video is going viral on YouTube, earning over half a million views.
In this discussion, per the video description: “four climate scientists destroy the anthropogenic global warming myth in response to the Global Climate Action Summit. “
Watch and share.
Link: https://youtu.be/mqejXs7XgsU
The Climate Hustle depends on both (1) uninformed people, (2) and being willing to be led like sheep to their fleecing and slaughter.
Condition (1) has generally been the case for humanity across all time scales. But it is condition (2) that has generally stopped the Hustlers from succeeding.
The Hustlers have figured out the solution. Give the People a false sense of (1) and then People will openly allow (2) to happen.
The Professors in this video attack what the Hustlers have tried to do with (1). These Professors blow away the myths of climate change, the myth that says today’s weather is unprecedented. If this realization seeps deep enough in the collective conscience, then we will once again as a society become resistant to being led to our slaughter by those who seek power and control over us.
The earth has been around for a long time, so nothing unprecedented is likely ever to happen from now on. But the changes in the earth’s climate that are happening now are unlike anything that’s been seen in a very long time, and there is no explanation for the changes except the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is due to the burning of fossil fuels. We’ve known since the 1830s that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising rapidly in recent decades. At the same time, glaciers and the polar ice caps have begun to shrink rapidly and the ocean has been growing warmer, and more acidic. People scoffed at James Hansen’s remark that with rising sea levels, a storm surge might someday flood lower Manhattan and the west side. They scoffed — and then came Hurricane Sandy.
Jesse
‘…At the same time, glaciers and the polar ice caps have begun to shrink rapidly and the ocean has been growing warmer, and more acidic’
As this happens periodically without the benefit of additional co2 perhaps we might conclude that the cause and effect are unrelated?
See ‘times of feast times of Famine’ by Ladurie which methodically lists the numerous changes in glaciers.
Now WHO, in their right mind, is EVER going to believe what a bunch of
Old White GuysCliimate Skeptic Scientists has to say on the subject of Global Climate Facts/sarc
I resemble that remark and was thinking the same.
#MeThree
I don’t see how age or race have anything to do with the issue.
It doesn’t but the left will use that meme. And that isn’t sarcasm.
They need to be a lot more Hipster.
Hipster>>>>>>Science.
Everybody know dat!
sarc/
‘But the changes in the earth’s climate that are happening now are unlike anything that’s been seen in a very long time.’
Like eighteen years of no temperature change whatsoever, despite increasing C02?
Standard progressive method – make a completely, flatly false statement, and then move on as if it just settled things.
And apparently a couple millimeters sea-level rise was why Hurricane Sandy flooded lower Manhattan.
Got anything more in your bucket?
A major change is the amount of urbanisation with each population centre becoming huge heat sinks due to the type of building materials used to not only construct the buildings which absorb much of the solar energy but virtually all of the surface area as well. These heat sinks then release stored energy during the nights maintaining a higher minimum overnight temperature. How many frosts are experienced in populated centres compared to surrounding rural areas?
In addition with most major population centres occupying coastal areas, the destruction of coastal forests have destroyed the biotic pump that transported the higher concentration of coastal precipitation further inland. It is no accident that most major population centres were first established on the most fertile soils which were generally a product of a reliable rainfall providing not only a reliable water source but conditions that allowed an abundance of food to be grown to support the population.
A basic fact of life for farmers is that if one farmer lightly stocks his farm with animals whilst his neighbour heavily stocks his farm, the heavily stocked farmer will experience drought like conditions much more frequently than the lightly stocked farmer even though they both receive the same average rainfall.
Been farming long? Duplicate post – Mod
IT’S MOTHER NATURE, OKAY? SHE DOES WHAT SHE DOES, OKAY? GET OVER IT, OKAY?
R. FEYNMAN, F. ROCKAWAY N.Y.
Yes, storms happen, always have.
Hurricane Sandy had dropped below hurricane windspeeds when it came ashore. Problem is; it came ashore right at high tide, on one of the highest tides of the year so yeah, storms happen. Then it hit a cold front. A lot of coincidences lined up to produce quite a storm. The Earth is fascinating and all kinds of interesting things happen. No need to make a religion out of it.
Here in Queensland, it’s a known phenomenon that cyclones *most* always happen during times of king tides, and come ashore on the high tide. The bring their own storm surge, and sometimes with the heavy rain; it floods. No surprise really, if you were paying attention.
“But the changes in the earth’s climate that are happening now are unlike anything that’s been seen in a very long time,….. At the same time, glaciers and the polar ice caps have begun to shrink rapidly….”
You must consider ~80 years ago a very long time.
He’s probably a millenial. Anything more than 20 years ago is ancient history.
He’s probably a millennial. Anything more than 20 years ago didn’t happen.
There was nothing “unprecedented” about Sandy, a barely Cat 1 hurricane at landfall hitting the upper East Coast during hurricane season at high tide of a full moon. The lack of human preparation and weak human-built infrastructure was the problem there.
Using vague terms like “a very long time” has zero scientific meaning. And to say “there is no explanation” is absurd in every case.
– 5,000-8,000 yr old tree stumps in what is now Arctic tundra tells us what the Arctic has been like during the Holocene,i.e. the last 11,000 years. The last 3,000 years have been a clear steady cooling, with an occasional few centuries of warmth returning, before the descent resumes. We’re on a long, very gradual natural relaxation of the global climate back to the Ice Age Pleistocene in which we live, punctuated with occasional warmth.
– tree ring records of multi-decadal mega-droughts in the Western US across 1,000 years of pre-history, coincident with the well documented maize-dependent Chaco culture collapse
– Norse colonies relying on pastoral agriculture 800 years ago in Greenland.
– Sea level rise has been steady for the last 150 years with no multi-decadal acceleration. It is only in computer models, models that only do what are programmed, does SLR acceleration occur to any extent to become a faster problem than it is naturally.
– Ocean acidification (below pH 8.1) is no longer widely discussed as it has quietly been acknowledged to be a non-problem. It is a non-problem due to now-recognized immense pH buffering capacity of marine geological stores of calcium carbonates.
– Glaciers have been shrinking throughout the interglacial Holocene. It is how they respond to natural warming. But recently Greenland’s largest glacier, Jacobshavn Glacier, is growing for the last 2 years, clearly contradicting climate science expectation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/glacier-growing-melting-jakobshavn-glacier-in-greenland-is-growing-again-a-new-nasa-study-finds/
– At least 1/3 of Himalayan glaciers are growing, 1/3 are steady, 1/3 are shrinking. Cherry pick what you want.
– West Antarctic Ice Sheet sits on at least 30 likely active volcanoes with lots of geothermal heat from below. Meanwhile all the evidence suggests East Antarctic Ice sheet is slowly gaining mass.
James Hansen as new head of NASA/GISS in the mid-1980’s realized from the historical records that the warmth of 1910-1945 was natural, and a decline followed that accelerated 1950-1975 with the 1975 global cooling scare, were both part of a natural cycle. An obvious cycle in global climate that is most acutely felt in the NH where most of the land mass is concentrated. He knew of course of the MLO CO2 record (started in 1958) showed rising annual average CO2. Hansen correctly surmised that from about 1980, there was a ~35 year window to run a scam. A scam based on a correlation being falsely interpreted as causation to drive an environmental agenda.
Two major assumptions in the late 80’s and early 90’s Hansen and his ilk assumed were on their side.
– Peak oil was widely being projected around Y2K or maybe just after by 2010, after which world oil prices would begin a steady upward march to scarcity and Western society would be ready for a shift in the energy and economic development paradigms, a shift away from fossil fuels.
– The predominate anthropogenic CO2 emissions were from North America and Europe, both regions having large capitalist democracratic countries which could be manipulated with the proper propaganda and climate messaging porn.
Both of those assumptions have been shattered. Peak oil if it occurs at all will be in 2035-2040 to later depending on technology and exploration for new reserves.
The rise of industrial China as an economic, industrial powerhouse was not foreseen in the early 1990’s. China’s now massive CO2 emissions eclipsing the US, and beyond any direct control by the West and its climate propaganda. This means that the environmental movement’s demands for shifting Western countries away from fossil fuels will leave China and Russia, both bad actors on the geopolitcal scene, as dominate economic powers as the West shrivels under a suicidal march to energy poverty.
Combine all that above with the clear benefits of more CO2 (some GHE warming to offset natural cooling, and CO2 greening the biosphere), and we have aclear case where climate change is a non-problem.
Honestly, I love your posts – too bad Jessie – with his standard, by-rote grade-school recitation – will probably watch it all fly over his head like a flock of ducks.
Or simply won’t read it. Certainly won’t absorb it.
The marching broom pauses… and then just keeps on marching.
Joel, you left out the recovery of fossilized tree stumps above the snow line in the Alps a couple of years ago, and the recovery of fossilized wood and evergreen needles (probably pines) in some of Greenland’s valleys about 15 years ago.
This planet goes through periodic episodes of warming and cooling, and has been doing so long before modern humans appeared. WE have nothing to do with. And the cold periods are IN FACT consistently much longer than the warming periods. MUCH LONGER.
We’ve been in a warming period for the last 18,000 to 20,000 years. It may be coming to an end. The cold line from winter still hasn’t retreated north the way it used to.
I have to get more bird food. They are pigs! I have everything from sparrows and cardinals to cowbirds, grackleds and redwinged blackbirds at my feeding station. They came back on time, and the weather smacked them for it. This has been going on for several years.
I go by real world stuff, unlike poor Jesse whose confusion is clouded by lack of real-time observation on his part. I”d just like to know how he’s going to stop a volcano from emitting noxious gases like CO, CO2, and SO2 for starters. Volcanoes are big contributors to the “bad gases” in the atmosphere. We must shut down volcanoes!!!!!
Joel, that is a brilliant dissertation that sums up the whole ball of wax quite compactly. It needs to be sent in print to every public policy making official. What if we all sent a copy to the white House email?
Joel O’B
The current climate is the best climate
for humans, pets and other animals
in at least 300+ years since the cold portion
of the Little Ice Age in the 1690s.
Plants are happier too — although they still
want the CO2 level to double or triple.
The gradually warming planet has been
accompanied by an unprecedented increase
of prosperity and human lifespan.
Any one with sense would be celebrating
300+ years of mild, harmless global warming
… and if they wanted to worry about the climate,
I’d say the end of the Holocene Inter-glacial
might be something to worry about !
They aren’t celebrating because they want the population of the earth reduced by at least 97%.
Oh, my, I’m going to have to up my game. Said much the same thing in far fewer words. My reputation as THE long winded explainer is at risk.
(Not a criticism of you, Joel – I prefer a full response myself; I was just in a bit of a hurry this afternoon.)
+ 100
Very well said, Joel.
Try explain it to the Nut jobs who think it’s clever to super glue themselves to a Train.
That’s what we’re up against.
Best to you.
Eamon
What changes in the earth’s climate that are happening now are you talking about? I have not seen any.
Exactly.
What was the cause of the unprecedented warming beginning 12-10000 years ago that melted glaciers that were more than a mile thick and raised sea levels more than 400 feet? Mastodon flatulence?
That intense warming made civilization possible. The moderate warming we’re in now is just icing on the cake.
Jesse, I see that you have fallen for the great lie that nothing except CO2 explains the current warming.
If so, please explain the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm periods. All of which were warmer than today, none of which were caused by CO2. While your at it please explain why 95% of the last 10K years was warmer than it is today, all without benefit of enhanced CO2.
PS: Storms like Super Hype Sanday have hit the Manhattan area about once every 100 years or so.
Nothing at all unusual, except to those who actually believe that history started the day they were born.
But the changes in the earth’s climate that are happening now are unlike anything that’s been seen in a very long time, and there is no explanation for the changes except the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Not quite true. What’s been lacking is the ability to track in real time changes which are always occurring. What we’ve had is a slow to create and record geologic record which lacks real time granularity.
Regarding Hurricane/superstorm Sandy. Hurricanes have regularly struck the New York area. It happened in 1769, 1815, 1893, 1938. More than one of those destroyed or formed the sand bar which Coney Island is on. If the destruction of Sandy is linked to AGW, then I would use that as proof AGW is causing less powerful hurricanes rather than more powerful. Why? Sandy wasn’t a hurricane when it hit Long Island, but the prior storms were. Regarding Manhattan flooding, I’m sure it was less than the prior storms to hit the area.
Hansen predicted a 30 foot rise in sea levels that would swamp Manhattan. Hurricane Sandy’s contribution to that was about 3 to 4 inches of water in the streets. The subway tunnels did NOT flood, which Hansen also predicted.
In fact, NONE OF HANSEN’S PREDICTION HAVE OCCURRED, Jesse. NONE of them. Happy to disappoint you.
Until it melted this afternoon, I had about six inches of snow in my yard and on my front steps. Want me to ship it to you?
** At the same time, glaciers and the polar ice caps have begun to shrink rapidly and the ocean has been growing warmer, and more acidic. **
“rapidly” – must be your imagination.
“more acidic” – another term from the fear mongers. Neutral is 7. The oceans are over 8.0, so they can only become MORE ALKALINE until they reach 7.0.
[“Less Alkaline” .mod]
GM. Which statement is scarier to the average person?
(1) The ocean is becoming more acidic.
(2) The ocean is becoming less alkaline.
Hint: For most people acid/acidic has negative connotations; and alkaline has no connotation except possibly “alkaline batteries,” which carries a neutral or good connotation.
Since the PH of the oceans are about 8, which means the oceans are alkaline not acidic, statement (2) is the more accurate statement. It naturally follows that if you’re a scientist, you opt for statement (2) over statement (1). However, if you’re a salesmen selling gloom and doom, accuracy be damned, statement (1) is your choice. This observation tells me all I need to know about anyone with a smidgeon of knowledge who uses statement (1).
I prefer the term “less caustic”. It’s just as valid 🙂
I prefer “more Neutral”
“…there is no explanation for the changes except the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere…”
I have a good explanation… scientific fraud. For a start, MM’s hockey stick, which is widely regarded as having been created through fraudulent means. Secondly, NOAA, BOM & UK MET Office are all actively engaged in manipulating past temperature records to create a warming effect that doesn’t otherwise exist.
1) The storm named “Sandy” was not a hurricane. The naming of what are simply normal strong storms (but nowhere near hurricane status) is just one of the tricks to tout the “extreme weather” propaganda.
2) The “rise in sea level” is measurable in millimeters since Hansen threw out that particular bit of scare quoting. About the same height as two lines of type on this page. (Maybe three or four if you are reading this on your phone.)
3) The oceans are quite happily still very basic in their chemistry, and will never be “acidic” – at least not before something like an impact by a major comet that has a very unusual makeup.
4) A storm surge that would flood the West Side was perfectly predictable (and predicted) by any honest person who looked at the history of storms in the region, and the “preparations” made by the City. Sea walls don’t gather many votes, provide much opportunity for graft, or bring in big campaign donations – so the City “Fathers” have never been very interested in them.
Jesse,
The oceans are not presently acidic, but are basic (@ 8.1 pH) and hence, can not get ‘more acidic’ until and unless they become acidic (i.e ave pH < 8.0)! Considering their immense buffering capacity this is extremely unlikely in anything less than a geologic time frame.
Saying the oceans are becoming “more acidic” because they are less alkaline (but still alkaline) is like saying a Billionaire is becoming more poor because he spent a million dollars on a project.
George Nicolas Ifft, an American consul at Bergen, Norway, submitted the following text in his report to the the State Department, Washington, D.C., which was published in the journal, Monthly Weather Review October 10, 1922.
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/1922%20SvalbardWarming%20MONTHLY%20WEATHER%20REVIEW%20.pdf
Sound familiar?
are unlike anything that’s been seen in a very long time,…
You’re right…and all those times before we had nothing to do with it
The 1938 storm was much worse than post-tropical cyclone Sandy. For example, the storm surge at Kings Point was 10.94 ft in 1938, compared to 8.51 ft for Sandy. Did Global Warming cause the 1938 hurricane?
Damage from Sandy was greater due to inflation and more things built in the flood plains.
City and State officials were woefully unprepared for Sandy and blamed “Global Warming” to cover their own malfeasance.
https://www.weather.gov/okx/1938HurricaneHome
https://www.weather.gov/okx/HurricaneSandy
CO2 levels are (thankfully) recovering from dangerously low levels. No doubt people have played some part in that but it is nothing to fear; rather it is something we should be relieved about.
As for Sandy – our thoughts were with all affected but it is worth reading NOAA meteorologist Martin Hoerling on the subject;
“Great events can have little causes. In this case, the immediate cause is most likely little more that the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent the west Atlantic in October…nothing unusual with that. On rare occasions their timing is such as to result in an interaction which can lead to an extreme event along the eastern seaboard. As to underlying causes, neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades (see IPCC 2012 SREX report).”
Even Trenberth agreed that the storm was caused by “natural variability”
I would hope not to scoff at anyone but when someone’s predictions are provably and repeatedly wrong yet they press on regardless I might feel a moment of pity for them.
…and we have not seen it since.
Yes Jesse we are still thawing from the last ice age. At present the official CO2 level is 0.041% in total of which the majority comes from natural sources. Very little of the 0.041% can be attributed to man. I am not convinced that this minuscule amount is responsible for temperature rise. Perhaps you can prove wrong?
All alarmist nonsense.
meaning, jesse fell couldn’t be bothered to watch the video above.
A) Read history, Jesse!!! Try reading about hurricanes that destroyed the Connecticut coast. Then remember that Sandy the super-hyped storm was not a hurricane upon landfall. Yet, idiots moan about the Sandy the “storm” pretending that it was somehow exceptional at all.
B) “We’ve known since the 1830s that CO2 is a greenhouse gas“; how very psychic of you!
Except, while postulated as far back as the 1820s, the greenhouse theory and some of the GHGs were not identified until 1859. Which is the year, Svante Arrhenius was born.
C) “But the changes in the earth’s climate that are happening now are unlike anything that’s been seen in a very long time“; utter hogwash.
If you visited WUWT at all regularly, you would have noticed posts demonstrating that your claim is specious.
d) “there is no explanation for the changes except the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is due to the burning of fossil fuels“; pure alarmism for alarm purpose.
Humans contribute a very small portion of the CO₂ atmospheric flux. Only by sophistry and shuffling estimates can alarmists claim that CO₂ increases are caused by mankind.
Shamelessly minimized and therefore ignored are tectonic, volcanic and ocean outgassing,
CO₂’s atmospheric content is 400 parts per million, or 4 molecules per 10,000 atmosphere molecules.
The overall grand increase of CO₂ since the 1800s is a maximum of 1.2 molecules per 10,000 molecules of air.
According to your alarmist claims, jesse, that increase of 1.2 molecules is responsible for massively heating the other 9,996 molecules of atmosphere along with far greater volumes of land and ocean.
CO₂ is a minimally active GHG that absorbs and emits a tiny fraction of infrared wavelengths; even then CO₂is only GHG active in the gaseous form.
H₂O is massively more abundant in the atmosphere. H₂O is very GHG active in all three physical forms, gaseous, solid and liquid. H₂O is very active over avery broad range of wavelengths including most of the frequencies CO₂ is active.
You are wrong, jesse; “there is no explanation for the changes except the increasing amount of CO2“, there are many possibilities starting with a natural cycle; a very distinct possibility that water is the primary GHG driver; and the likelihood that CO₂ is essential for life while a miniscule atmospheric player.
E) The Arctic is recovering and low ice / high ice cycles are well recorded in history. That alarmists hyper focus on starting their ice extent graphs at an Arctic ice minimum is sophistry.
* i) The Antarctic is not melting!!! Alarmist predictions clearly state “the poles”, not just the Arctic.
F) Instead of fearing shrinking glaciers, one should remember that during the LIA, villages were panicking about glacier growth. Recorded history that proves growing glaciers are bad for humanity.
G) Sea level is not rising any faster than it has for hundreds of years. James Hansen deserves ridicule for his 10 foot plus sea level rise that was supposed to occur fifteen years ago.
H) Acidic oceans is nonsense. The only indications of acidity were from deep currents rising to the surface. Even then, sea life is unharmed in spite of alarmists crying and tearing their clothes.
I) The East Coast of America has a very long history of getting hammered by hurricanes, right up into the 1950s.
The true horror is that gullible idiots fail to read history and instead accept utter nonsense from fraudsters pushing for funding from donations or government grants. When the Atlantic Coast of America is once again hammered by frequent hurricanes, it is only a return to normality.
I actually became embarrassed for you while reading this. Do you read anything other than the mainstream media? You produce all the well warn sweeping statements fed to the masses which may may make believers out of the ignorant but isolated observations do not assume robustness of conclusion. Are you suggesting that climate was somehow stable until someone invented the SUV? That is infantile to put it mildly and suggests a fundamental ignorance of both geological history and physics. I see you are long on the “sweeping statement” but embarrassingly short on knowledge which I suppose makes you a willing disciple of the religion being promoted by the Climate Industrial Complex who need you to be worried to support their 2 Trillion USD a year habit. Does it not concern you that none of this money is going into understanding climate change as a whole and mitigating its effects whatever they might be? Does it not concern you that the IPCC completely avoids understanding natural causes in order to separate them from claimed man-made causes? If it does not then it should. Instead it is going into flawed science to support alarm which still after 30 or more years and so much money cannot prove the part man plays, oh and making some very unscrupulous people rich as well as what this is really all about, the funding of attempts at imposing Marxist world government. Did enough people not die in the 20th Century to prove that will not bring anything but more misery? Pulling a few statements out of the ether does not produce a robust science based conclusion. Science is all about method not results. You use emotional language which not only undermines anything you say but also betrays an ignorance of basic science. Even that shockingly political body the IPCC state that the minimum time period for climate change is 30 years (It used to be 50). Even a secondary school child is taught that a minimum of three points is required to draw any kind of line through results which means 100 years is an absolute minimum time period over which to observe climate variation and NOT the difference between last summer and this which is the hysterical nonsense flowing from the mainstream media today encouraged by those who profit from telling you this. As a thermo dynamic response to EXTERNAL warming of the planet which halted the “current” ice age 10,000 years or so ago ice began to melt and seal level began rising, very quickly at first and then slowing down with what is an exponential decay . Your acceptance that all this is due to CO2 and man requires a profound ignorance of science and a willingness to believe what you are told. Only children and believers in religion behave like that. By the way two words for you to google when you “worry” about sea level rise. Eustasy and Isostasy are NOT the same thing. Strange do you not think that the IPCC do not mention them? Also read about plate tectonics which while an imperfect theory generally is correct. You make conflationary mistakes that would get a 12 year old’s science project a D grade. I am assuming you are an adult.. “But the changes in the earth’s climate that are happening now are unlike anything that’s been seen in a very long time”. Please cite credible scientific references to back that up and also perhaps you can tell what you mean by “a very long time”? We were in the Little Ice Age until 1830-1850. Was that a “long time ago”? Oh dear climate change! Go back before that and we had the blessing of the Medieval Warm Period. More climate change! So THREE change events in 1000 years which is nothing compared to geological time. Do you have any knowledge of human history, that human development coincided with each warming phase we have had? If not why not? Do you know what an interglacial is? If not why not? You are lucky to have been born during one. But it means it is a short hiatus, a respite in the middle of a not very nice cold experience. The planet has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. A large part of the current warming that the paid alarmists sweepingly refer to could not have possibly have had any influence by man. Does it not concern you that they must know this but include it anyway when they are digging their hand in your pocket because it should. Your singling out of CO2 as the culprit with all the information available to us today is a sign of profound ignorance. Correlation does not mean causation. Did you not know that there was a full on glaciation in the Ordovician when atmospheric CO2 was eight times what it is today? If not why not? Have you not read anything remotely scientific because if you had you would see that when there is a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature it is temperature which drives CO2 levels not the other way around. Why do you not know this? You see out there in the real world there is a highly complex system combining the sea the rocks and the atmosphere. All of them hold CO2. The plants you like to eat evolved when atmospheric CO2 levels were somewhere between 1500-2000ppm. Did you not know this? If not why not, because commercial greenhouse owners know this which is why you will see a big gas tanks next to the greenhouses with the words CARBON DIOXIDE written on them because pumping CO2 into the greenhouse reminds the plants of how good life was when they evolved and they respond by growing faster using less water. Did you not know this, if not why not? Do you know where the oxygen you breath comes from? CO2. Did you not know this? If not why not? The Earth is getting greener. More food is being produced than ever before. This is a bad thing in your view? CO2 in spite of what that Nobel Prize winning Scientist Al Gore, (another D grade student) says is the gas of life. Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently still at a worryingly low level when compared to geological time. We understand NOTHING about anything more than parts of what is a highly complex system. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply a fool or a liar. There is a reasonable argument to suggest that without the historically recent human consumption of hydrocarbons ( which by the way is the basis of your 21st Century lifestyle and a life expectancy not of 40 years but of 80years) the planet was heading for an extinction event because when CO2 levels get below 200ppm and head towards 150ppm photosynthesis is first severely compromised and then stops. With that ALL life stops. Did you not know this? If not why not?
So, which way do you want to go with CO2 in the atmosphere, up or down? Be careful what (in your fashionable virtue signaling ignorance) you wish for.
More paragraphs please!
Bravo! Let’s see if it penetrates the thick, indoctrinated skull of the intended target.
“the ocean has been growing warmer, and more acidic.”
The oceans are not (are never likley to be) acidic. They are alkaline, and may well be gettting less alkaline in some areas, but NOT acidic. There is a difference.
See point 59m 58s on video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofXQdl1FDGk
Jesse,
I feel sorry for you and apologize on behalf of whatever educational system established your critical thinking skills (public, private, home schooling, CNN, etc.).
“changes in the earth’s climate that are happening now are unlike anything that’s been seen in a very long time”
Does your “very long time” include that about every 80,000 years an ice age affects the planet and places like Chicago are covered by 1 mile of ice? Do you think people cried every time that glacier melted and the ice went away?
Do you know that historical records show CO2 concentration does not drive temperature? CO2 levels do not increase before temperature increases. It lags behind temperature increases by about 400 years. Hold on Sweat Pea, I know that is an inconvenient truth, but the truth will set you free.
Do you understand that the outcome of one hurricane (Sandy) is extremely inadequate data to support a global understanding of the earth’s climate? Yesterday, the weather forecaster told me it was going to snow where I lived. Well it didn’t snow. So does that give me the right to declare I completely understand how the earth’s climate operates?
People scoffed at James Hansen’s remark that with rising sea levels, a storm surge might someday flood lower Manhattan and the west side. They scoffed — and then came Hurricane Sandy.
Yeah they scoff then in one hour the tide rose 13 feet and inundated wharves, causing the East River to meet the Hudson River across lower Manhattan as far north as Canal Street. Oh wait, that wasn’t hurricane sandy I just described, it was an 1821 hurricane.
Let’s try that again. Yeah they scoff then Floods knocked out electrical power in the Bronx and above 59th Street in Manhattan. The IND subway line lost power, and 100 large trees were destroyed in Central Park. Oh, no wait, that’s not sandy either. That was a 1938 hurricane.
your post Jesse is nothing but ignorance of history.
Apparently CO2 emissions in the UK are down to 1880 levels.
Hurricane Sandy was a gale when it went ashore in NJ. No different from many other severe NE gales on that coast. The flooding was due to a planning failure, was it not? Blaming “climate change” for everything weather-related is standard operating procedure nowadays. Yawn.
How can oceans get more acidic as they warm, when they give off dissolved gasses as they warm?
Water becomes acidic by dissolving CO2, which turns some of the water into carbonic acid (H2CO3). However, when water warms, it can hold less dissolved gas, and so the CO2 leaves the water, increasing the alkalinity.
Seems the laws of physics are against you.
It was Tropical Storm Sandy by the time it got to New York.
This was a reply to Jesse Feel, the third comment from the top, I have no idea how it ended up here.
Hi Jim,
I joined in late, but Jesse is still being shredded this far down the comments.
Some wonderful stuff too, I might add.
Eamon
In 1942 a squadron of aircraft set off from the North American coast en-route to Great Britain and World War II. Due to climatic conditions the “Lost Squadron was forced to land on the Greenland ice cap. In 1992 a group of airplane hunters set off for Greenland to find and rescue one or more of the aircraft. By their own admission they fully expected to dust the snow off some wings and add some fuel and fly them out. Well, surprise, surprise! When they got there the aircraft were nowhere to be seen. They finally found them…under 265 feet of ice. They eventually dug one out and 9 years later “Glacier Girl” again took to the air!
In 2012 another group of intrepid airplane hunters traveled to Greenland to try and rescue another of the ice-bound aircraft and they quickly found one, two miles closer to the ocean and under 340 feet of ice. I’m not sure if they rescued another plane or not and that is immaterial!
What is somewhat important is that the final tally for ice in this little story is that the thickness of the glacier grew by 340 feet in 70 years, and 65 feet of that was around the turn of the present century when “Global Warming” was in full swing and the Greenland ice was melting at an “unprecedented” rate. What a crock!!
Marvin: “the thickness of the glacier grew by 340 feet in 70 years”.
That does not follow at all from that story.
Study the following:
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/research/flowofice/
Jesse Fell, you are simply wrong in your facts. In truth,
1. CO2 is rising, but nowhere near levels seen in the geologic past.
2. Temps have been rising slowly, with cyclical interruptions, since the 1700’s.
3. Within the error of measurement, there has been no net temp rise since the 1990’s.
4. Temps rose between 1910 to 1940 at roughly the same rate as between 1980 to 2010, but CO2 was not rising in the 1910-1940 interval. This is not explained.
5. All the models used to create the climate change hysteria by the IPCC in the early 1990’s predicted a much greater acceleration in temps than has occurred, even though CO2 has risen. The models are broken and not yet fixed.
6. Those models were infantile. Imagine creating models that forgot to include terms for the heat sink effect of the oceans or the likely negative feedback effect of increasing cloud cover as the H2O content of the atmosphere rises (that rising H2O content necessarily in those models and assigned a pure, large, positive feedback effect—which was an ad hoc bit of “science” without experimental basis). Moronic…or perhaps just mendacious.
7. The arctic sea ice cover decreased from the 1970’s until about 2007, after which it has fluctuated at a lower but roughly stable level. The Antarctic sea ice cover has been roughly stable without significant trend from the 1970’s to present. It is simple fraud to run about claiming the polar ice caps are melting, just as it is fraud to claim the polar bears are threatened by global warming—-their population is rising.
History will assign scorn to the “scientists” who have promoted a religious-like belief in the catastrophic aspect of projected global warming. Shame on anyone who claims to be a scientist and then preaches in a religious mode—-ie, apocalyptic, fear-based, empirical fact-free projections in service to rent-seeking or a political agenda or both.
kwinterkorn:
1. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising faster now than at any known time in the history of the Earth, including previous periods of mass extinctions caused by increased volcanic activity emitting large quantities of CO2 in the deep past.
The fastest rate of CO2 increase during the climatic convulsions of the glacial to interglacial transitions of the last Ice Age was 30ppmv per 1,000 years (evidence Vostok ice cores). Human emissions have now increased atmospheric CO2 by 30ppmv in little over 10 years, a rate of increase nearly 100 times as fast, see:
https://www.co2levels.org/
Both the rate of increase and the absolute amount need to be taken into account.
2. Global average temperatures since 1850 (five year average):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60
There are fluctuations but little evidence of cyclic change.
3. That is not true. Here is the temperature changes for the two main global surface and two satellite lower troposphere temperature series (data from http://www.woodfortrees.org/) :
Global Average Temperature Anomaly 1990s
HADCUT4 0.276degC
GISTEMP LOTI 0.389degC
RSS 0.102C
UAH6 0.001C
Global Average Temperature Anomaly 2010s (to latest)
HADCRUT4 0.600degC
GISTEMP LOTI 0.769degC
RSS 0.517C
UAH 0.242C
Change
GISTEMP LOTI +0.324degC
HADCRUT4 +0.380degC
RSS +0.415C
UAH +0.241C
4. Not true.
i) Global average temperature rose at 0.093C/decade from 1910 to 1940, and at 0.156C/decade from 1980 to 2010. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:60/plot/gistemp/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2010/trend
ii) Atmospheric CO2 rose from c.300ppmv in 1910 to c.310ppmv in 1940.
iii) The rise in temperature from 1910 to 1940 is also explained by a relative lack of volcanic activity and a slight increase in solar radiation, see:
Do me a favor. Put what you are responding in quotes or use blockquotes to set them off. I can’t tell what you are saying is incorrect.
Richard: Sorry if it is unclear.
I didn’t make any quotations, so no quotes are appropriate.
Each of my paragraphs numbered 1 to 4 correspond to the same numbered paragraph in kwinterkorn’s post.
Jesse, You are trying to run in opposite directions at the same time.
On the one hand you accept there’s nothing unprecedented happening today, then you try to squeeze through an ” unlike anything that’s been seen in a very long time”
The nature of cycles would indicate that something unprecedented might take ”a very long time” to come round again. If the same thing was happening every day , it night be more of a problem and I would probably switch sides.
By the same token, it is also unreasonable to expect (pardon the pun) carbon copy events. I suspect it would be difficult to find any two weather events to be exactly the same. So then we could say they are all unprecedented.
Read into it what you may. I’d love to agree with you, but then, we’d both be wrong.
It is simply untrue to claim that “there’s nothing unprecedented happening today”.
One example is the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 (caused entirely by human activity).
There is no known time in the entire history of the Earth when atmospheric CO2 has increased as rapidly as in recent decades. In that respect, the closest approach to the present was during the build-up to mass extinction events, but the present rate is several times greater than such times. Ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland give evidence of what appears to be, on the graphs, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 (eg. http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/vostok_T_CO2.png ) but the fastest rate those ice cores record is an increase of 30ppmv in 1,000 years. We are now increasing CO2 at a rate of 30ppmv in little more than ten years – nearly one hundred times faster than those Ice Age cores reveal.
We really are changing the atmosphere at a rate unprecedented in Earth’s history.
I clicked through to watch it on Youtube and increase it’s hit rate.
I would suggest the same.
Joel O’B
Please consider another point of view:
Leftists KNOW they are using junk science,
such as wrong wild guesses of the future climate,
and altering historical climate data, again and
again … but they DON’T CARE — climate change
is a fake crisis used to gain political power.
The science does not matter !
The climate junk science, that should embarrass anyone
with a science degree, does not matter.
The lying does not matter to leftists
— lying did not matter for 2.5 years
of the Trump Russian Collusion Delusion
(which may never end) , and the lying
in the attempt to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s
nomination also did not matter to Democrats.
Why?
Because truth is NOT a leftist value.
Lying to get power is acceptable, and encouraged.
Leftists don’t care about good science,
because if enough people believe a climate crisis
is coming, it serves their political goals even if
no climate crisis ever shows up.
Leftists always want a bigger, more powerful
government, so they can tell everyone how to live.
Having a “crisis” helps them get what they want (more power).
Perhaps they are not as stupid as they sound
— the “climate crisis” is a political strategy
to help leftists gain political power through
virtue signaling (“only we Democrats care enough
to save the planet for the children”).
My theory would explain the lack of real science,
as demonstrated by grossly inaccurate predictions
of the future climate, starting in the late 1950’s
and ramping up in the past 30 years, with computer
games that, on average, predict quadruple the warming rate
we’ve actually had since 1940 ( the era of fossil fuels
and CO2 emissions started roughly in 1940 ).
The best way to get more power,
starts with nominating
good candidates that win elections —
not a candidate named Shrillary,
with a bizarre open marriage,
being investigated by the FBI,
with no charisma, and who
doesn’t enjoy campaigning !
Once leftists get political power,
they need a “crisis”, real or fake,
and then claim “we must act now”,
and the solution is more rules,
regulations and taxes
(the leftist solution for any crisis).
“Climate change” is a fake “crisis” that
is working for the leftists — remember that the
climate change catastrophe is ALWAYS
coming in the future, but never arrives !
You can never falsify something
that’s “coming in the future” !
Climate change is a perfect “crisis”
— always off in the future !
A “crisis” where no one gets hurt.
And since it is an imaginary “crisis”,
leftists can declare they have solved
the climate crisis any time !
If not for “climate change”, there would be
some other “crisis’ that leftists would use
to ramp up government powers.
Perhaps income inequality — not as scary
as a coming climate change catastrophe,
but maybe better than bringing back
the hole in the ozone layer or acid rain ?
A sad but truthful view but for “Left” read thinly veiled marxism. 100million people died in the 20th Century to prove marxism not only does not work but is a worse obscenity than man made manipulation of people with religion. Where there is marxism people die. since the end of the last war because the Soviets were on the winning side they and their methods were given breathing space. The Frankfurt School and its concept of Critical Theory was allowed to develop in the US. The education system on both sides of the Pond is now so infiltrated by marxist indoctrinated educators that it is compromised with children now being indoctrinated with marxism, being told what to think not how to think and to shun and shut down dissent. We are witnessing the enactment of William Goldings “Lord of the Flies” on a massive scale.
Please stick with the facts as stated, and don’t change them around in a five minute conversation…
Tim Ball: “You can mention that is was warmer than today for at least 95% of the time over the last 10,000 years…”
Not 90%, 95% – quit changing the number. That is what the activists do to suit themselves.
(Obviously “at least 90%” is a subset of “at least 95%”, but I hate when a quote is changed about out of carelessness)
I love that news article, I have seen several of them from the 1920’s into the 1930’s about the lack of sea ice and the disappearing glaciers. You can learn a lot from history, if you bother to pay attention to it. I don’t think they bother to teach real history anymore, just the new revised history that is politically correct and sensitive to protected minorities (i.e. anyone that is not a White Male, and certainly not Christian).
Stick with 97%.
(Like 57 in the Manchurian Candidate!)
I am pretty sure I am in agreement with you Robert but not sure where you are aiming your arrows. Is it where bureaucrats hire scientists who create facts by being 100% certain of their estimates (generated by computer models that are 100% wrong but will probably get it right one of these days) or that bureaucrats make up certainty by declaring 97% of mystical Scientists in the Land of Make Believe agree it is true despite their inability to defined the polling subset or is it that the alarmists keep changing their story to suit the narrative that Global Warm…aaahhhh Climate Change is the problem?
“I love that news article, I have seen several of them from the 1920’s into the 1930’s about the lack of sea ice and the disappearing glaciers. You can learn a lot from history, if you bother to pay attention to it. ”
Those reports are hilarious.
get a map.
Steven
Tell us what is not factual – so far you said nothing.
Don’t bother, Gerald. The Mosher Force Field is at full power these days.
saying nothing with his drive-by posts is Mosh’s preferred M.O. He says nothing because he has nothing.
Gerald: See my comment April 17, 2019 at 4:25 am.
The small dip in Arctic see ice in the early 1920s, to which those press cuttings presumably relate, was as nothing compared to subsequent decline in sea ice extent.
?w=500&h=340
See:
Purple line is end-summer Arctic sea ice extent.
So they’re still true, but hilarious. Good to know.
Dear Mr. Mosher: Thanks, I already got a map. It was made in the Cartographic Department of the National Geographic Society published in 1943. It was not drawn to depict sea ice in particular, but it does show the NW Passage open, and many of the sea lanes now iced over were open, just like those stories from WWII. Bet they had maps.
You didn’t reply to Jesse Fell. Odd that, as you two seem to have the same level of science sophistication. He didn’t watch the video, either. Maybe you should.
Local radio here in Portland Oregon cited that 75% of education time in the Portland schools is dedicated to ‘social justice’.
Portland? Not a real place.
I am so glad my children are long past the ‘government indoctrination’ stage. When we were looking for a house nearly 20 years ago my wife insisted that we did not buy a house in the Portland Public School System. (She is a teachers aid and PPS reputation even then was already bad) So we are like a block from the border in another, smaller, much smaller, school district.
If you mean ‘positively not for real,’ I agree.
Unfortunately, CO2 is confused with pollution of all types. ‘Carbon’ is being held up as a proxy against modernity and capitalism, claiming it will radically alter the future climate, even though we are having the most benign weather the world has seen the last 2.6 million years. In fact, the climate is so benign, it fully supports 7.6 billion peoples on the good Earth. This whole dog and pony show by the alarmists predicting doom is getting tiring.
The election of President Trump was the deathnell for the Cult of Calamitous Climate.
The wheels have been falling off this nasty scheme by our bureaucrats for years, but as we all know,bureaus never die,they just “repurpose” until retirement.
Schemes of this nature are herd behaviour as normal.Stampede the mob for profit or pleasure.
Mass hysteria gives the herd beast a wonderful sense of belonging and certainty.
Which brings me to Appeals to authority, the whole Doom because of Sin(burning fossil fuels) is a traditional religion, so only the finest people can belong.AND ALL THE SMARTEST PEOPLE AGREE.
Gullibility is a wonderful thing.
If we were semi sane, most of the “do-gooder cadre”would not even be elected dog catcher.
That they rule and regulate us,confirms the Idiocracy.
So many fat,ugly naked Emperors.
897 ppm of evil CO2 ? … alarmists must have flown away !
That Room is on Fire
I noticed there were no polar bears in that entire room.
No religion too.
Imagine that.
Funny, we don’t tend to mention that it was observed that Mars’s ice cap receded in sync with that of earth’s north polar ice over the past the past several decades. It was even reported in Nat Geo in 2007 but the original article has been expunged!
https://ep.probeinternational.org/2007/01/26/deniers-part-ix-look-mars-truth-global-warming/
Dr. Abdussamatov, head of Pulcovo Observatory in St Petersburg, Russia, commenting on Nasa’s findings:
“These parallel global warmings – observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth – can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance.”
This shook the Team and NASA GISS so much that they clammed up for several years until they concocted an alternative “explanation” – Mars has its own Milankovic end of their ice maximum. Yeah its just a coincidence!
Well, Mars doesn’t really have ice caps, unless you mean ‘dry ice’ caps.
Tell that to NASA
https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/polaricecaps/PIA02393.html
Unfortunately this well done interlude from climate alarmism with undeniable facts will be ignored by people already convinced we are all about to die from burning fossil fuels. More time will pass and the goalposts will be moved again and the alarmism continued until people just get tired of hearing it while their weather stays they same. The demonizing of fossil fuels to attack Capitalism will only stop when the Marxist/Socialists/UN become the new world order or we run out. Social justice and ecology are their weapons of choice and propaganda their chosen delivery method.
Unfortunately this well done interlude from climate alarmism with undeniable facts will be ignored by people already convinced we are all about to die from burning fossil fuels. More time will pass and the goalposts will be moved again and the alarmism continued until people just get tired of hearing it while their weather stays they same. The demonizing of fossil fuels to attack Capitalism will only stop when the Marxist/Socialists/UN become the new world order or we run out. Social justice and ecology are their weapons of choice and propaganda their chosen delivery method. They won’t stop.
Sorry I don’t know how to post a URL. However I have a webpage that I thoroughly recommend you visit.
‘The Top of The World. Is the North pole turning to water?” which should get you there. Written by John L Daly, probably year 2000. It includes a very powerful image of three submarines, HMS Superb, USS Billfish and USS Sea Devil rendezvousing at the surface of the North Pole in 1987. Also included are records of open water at the pole. Well worth a look!
jolan – to post a url in a comment, simply paste it in as text (with say a space at each end, or as a separate line). It will be recognised as a url and formatted accordingly. You can try it out using Test in the menu in the page banner. You can find all the rules somewhere there as well.
Thanks Mike. Will give it a whirl. PS How do you paste?
within 24 hours guaranteed someone will link the Notre Dame fire to Climate Change … guaranteed
My husband has already done it! Increased carbon dioxide leads to acid rain causing damage to stone which requires repair: repair work causes fire.
Almost every step in the argument is questionable – I stuck to explaining that pollution is not the same thing as climate change.
Not a surprise that AMS bulletin read just like it could have been written today, because Postmodernism, which was very popular at the time, was basically the forerunner to today’s environmental cult.
I’m not a scientist, so would someone please explain to me why its significant that the Arctic Ocean changes from ice to liquid and back again? Its an ocean with the same volume of water, yes? It only changes form. Why the hubbub over that? Everyone freaks out because there is less ice there. Why is that important if the total volume of water doesn’t change? What am I missing?
George of the Jungle
You are “missing” nothing, but are addressing a very fundamental “assumption” deliberately being propagandized by the global warming astrologists (er, scientist community). True, the Arctic Ocean has NOTHING to do with ocean rise. However, it IS “convenient” for the global astrology community to make you ASSOCIATE “Arctic sea ice melting” with “Arctic sea ice melting =Antarctic sea ice melting = Antarctic ice cap melting = Greenland ice melting = Iceland ice melting = EVERY-glacier ice melting = GLOBAL ICE MELTING = Global sea level rise.” Not a correct statement, but a (deliberately-created) association easy to publicize to the unwary. And the publicity (about future sea level rise) is all that is intended.
Now, the “second” myth about Arctic Sea Ice melting is far more difficult to address, because on the theoretical face of it, the threat appears very real. “Arctic amplification” (also publicized as the “Arctic death spiral”) consists of the following logic train wreck of amplification:
The sea ice is “light” and has a high albedo.
The open ocean is “dark” and has a low albedo.
If the sea ice melts, more “dark” areas are exposed to the sunlight, and so more sunlight is absorbed in the newly opened ocean.
More sunlight absorbed = More energy absorbed in the ocean, so the ocean heats up more.
A warmer ocean will melt more sea ice, hence, more ocean is exposed to the sunlight so more ocean areas will heat up and melt more sea ice.
This is absolutely correct.
If the melting sea ice were off of the coast of Florida, the Riviera, Brazil or Hawaii or Australia.
Up north, past 70 north latitude up towards the pole, this does not happen.
Up north, where the Arctic sea ice actually is present, and where any honest observer MUST AGREE that Arctic sea ice has receded from its 1982-1984 sea ice maximums, less sea ice over the course of an entire year means MORE heat is lost from the exposed Arctic Ocean into the Arctic air (which is seen as a warmer Arctic air temperature in the 7 winter months) than is gained during the fleeting 5 months of the Arctic summer.
Net result? Loss of Arctic sea ice is a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK to the planet’s heat balance, and is a CAUSE of the Arctic sea ice fluctuations in a 60-70 year oscillation. We saw the maximum at the beginning of the satellite era in 1979-1984, we saw a natural decline in Arctic sea ice minimums in September between 1984 and 2006-2007, and we are seeing a beginning of the recovery of the Arctic sea ice minimums in the twelve years (1/4 of the entire record!) between 2006 and 2018.
Now, to clarify my remarks above:
Yes, over the 5 months of summer in the Arctic, more “extra” solar energy is absorbed into the newly-exposed Arctic Ocean when the sea ice is melted.
However, the simplified diagrams and flow charts showing this ALWAYS (deliberately) neglect to show that any area of open ocean LOSES more heat to the atmosphere when it is open than when it is closed up and insulated by sea ice. Since arctic sea ice loss (the daily sea ice anomaly from some arbitrary daily sea ice average) is near-constant over the course of an entire year, the calculations show that MORE HEAT IS LOST from that exposed ocean water by the increase in evaporation, increase in convection, increase in conduction, and increase in long wave radiation from the warmer ocean surface over 12 months than is gained from the sun in 5 months.
Maybe it would be good to re-post the numbers for carbon emissions (if they can be verified by someone more knowledgeable than me) including ALL sources: ie, ants, termites, bacteria, volcanoes, etc…
I once saw this link in the comment section of this very website and it shocked me:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/not-worried-about-co2/
Comment from there: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/22/termite-colony-the-size-of-great-britain-has-been-being-built-since-the-dawn-of-the-pyramids/
Can someone please confirm or infirm? If true, why isn’t it front-page news?
It’s one of those stories that may be true (probably isn’t), with certain cherry-picked exaggerations, and I posted a comment to that effect on the story at the time. The story is essentially irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. With stories like that one should always try to pick out the exaggerations, and whether they matter.
While it is certainly true that total natural carbon fluxes dwarf those of humans, what is equally or more important is the changes that are occurring. That is usually where the biggest ‘deceptions’ are told. When claims are made about the current, and future, impacts of human CO2 emissions, they almost always rely on assuming that the natural fluxes either remain constant or can be accurately predicted. Neither is true, but if one assumes that there are small or no errors in one’s understanding of the natural fluxes then the human influence can always be made to seem larger than it really is.
Thank you for your quick answer.
Well, if I understand correctly, it’s going to be difficult to extract an estimate of humanity’s share of the “blame” from numbers that are still debated by (over?) orders of magnitude. Please forgive my awful english.
These 12 discussions do a nice job at obliterating the fake climate crisis:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
I am SHOCKED! You posted this five hours ago, and the video link is still good!
Yes, share it out as widely as you can, noting what it is about – the more people that try to access it and find out that it is censored, the better.
TBH: My original take from the vid was: ‘How Sad’.
Four, very accomplished scientists, of undoubted intellect, couldn’t work out the basics of presentation that they should have four microphones, and not be passing one, antediluvian vocal amplifier around the speakers.
They have a clear message – to we, the sceptics – but to the idiots who are blocking the roads in central London, they are clowns. When you listen to the the protesters in London they admit that they really want an extreme socialist society and that AGW is a means to an end.
Yet we sceptics can’t match their attraction to youth: we laud four, venerated (OK, respected, to us) scientists that the young cannot relate to. And it is they – the young – who will make the rules for the future (which I am glad to say, I shall not be part of).
I weep for the future my grandson will inhabit, who will have no say in how his life will be controlled by the zealots of the left/AGW and who will be in control when he is of age.
The left was in control in the US. Yet Hillary lost and Trump won, despite the MSM and the polls.
Don’t weep for your grandson yet. Love him and teach him.
Yeah, that’s it: those four extremely accomplished scientists should be in charge of the A/V set-up for their presentations.
Because they weren’t, they are doofuses and their comments are irrelevant.
Face it: Harry: deep down, you’re shallow.
Hear-hear. Love him and teach him. Especially, teach him to be the one in control when he is of age.
It’s just a bunch of old white guys. Nobody hip pays any attention to them any more. They can’t even dunk!
Correct.
Everybody these days knows that to capture listeners’ attention (which is not so much to make one understood) by the proletariat, one has to pepper ones’s sentences with lots of the words “like”, “amazing”, “awesome”, and “cool”.
Thanks for taking the time to explain RA Cook. I’m going to have to study what you’ve said to fully comprehend.
Yeah, that’s it: those four extremely accomplished scientists should be in charge of the A/V set-up for their presentations.
Because they weren’t, they are doofuses and their comments are irrelevant.
Face it: Harry: deep down, you’re shallow.
I loved the last but…900ppm in here…evacuate immediately…haha.
”WE ARE RAPIDLY HEADING FOR A CLIMATE CATASTROPHE”….I heard on the radio last night.
I thought to myself – I wonder how long it will take before this climate change fad will be over and done with.
Then I thought, it only exists due to social media and such fads can come about with lightning speed now. Then I thought, but they can in theory disappear just as fast too. So then I thought, all it will take is for new anti climate change hysteria meme to take hold. I am starting to hear – very quite and very seldom mind you – noises and complaints about – shock horror – an opposing view point. (seems a new conservative push back gaining ground in the young! – could it be a trend??)
So then I thought, I think that just maybe we might have reached or are beginning to reach peak climate fear. If that is so, give it another 5 years I reckon.
How ever long it takes I predict the fad might be a memory within the foreseeable future.
This presentation is funded by a group which itself is funded by fossil fuel, nor do the scientists have any credibility, as they are also funded by fossil fuel – indeed some of them are paid activists/lobbyists…
Like this guy…
https://www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris
No credibility whatever… the bit about ice melting in the 20s/30s is out of context: the melt seen then while high in terms of conditions at the time is in no way equivalent to melt we see now – there’s some excellent comparisons on Judith Curry’s website which shows that highest point in 30s/40s for melt is now regularly exceeded.
I was going to respond to your post then I saw who you were. Griff you have no credibility whatsoever. You have been proven wrong so many times, it’s a wonder you still come back.
Grriff is like a punch drunk boxer who keeps going back to center ring to get pounded on some more
LOL. the least credible person on this site trying to paint others as not credible (and linking to one of the least credible sources to top it off). Thanks for the laughs griff.
All your bullshit comes from agenda-driven hacks, Grift. ALL of it.
Don’t ever say ‘credibility’ again.
Where does the false claim that “it was warmer than today for 95% of the last 10,000 years” that Tom Harris repeats in the above Heartland video come from? Where is the evidence? Although Harris does not give the source of the evidence he was probably referring to this graph:
However, this is a graph of Greenland temperatures from the GISP2 ice core, and:
i) therefore it does not represent global temperatures
ii) more importantly, in fact crucially, the graph does not show present or even recent global average temperatures and therefore cannot be used to compare present temperatures with those of the last 10,000 years.
The graph ends (ie the last data point was) in 1855, and therefore provides no information concerning present temperatures, or even the recent period of global warming.
Does the graph show that Greenland temperatures were warmer than they were in 1855 for about 95% of the last 10,000 years? Yes.
Does it provide any comparison between global temperatures now and the last 10,000 years? No, none at all.
The claim that Tom Harris repeats concerning temperatures for the last 10,000 years has no validity whatsoever.
Is there a reference to the source. The American Meteorological Society Monthly weather reviews. Nov 1922. as referred to in the in the video.
Ken: The “American Meteorological Society Monthly weather reviews Nov 1922” is not the source of Tom Harris’s repeat of Tim Ball’s ridiculous claim that “it was warmer than today for 95% of the last 10,000 years”, as will become obvious if you watch the video again.
?w=500&h=340
That AMS reference reported anomalously warm conditions in the Arctic at around that time. Just how anomalous those times were can be judged by the following graph of Arctic sea ice extent (from Kinnard et al https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007GL032507 ), helpfully available here:
This graph shows two interesting points:
i) there was indeed a sharp decline in Arctic sea ice around 1920, as would be expected from anomalously warm conditions, and
ii) however anomalously warm those conditions were, the consequent loss of Arctic sea ice was as nothing compared to the further losses experienced during the rest of the twentieth century and beyond, as global warming continued and intensified.
ii) however anomalously warm those conditions were, the consequent loss of Arctic sea ice was as nothing compared to the further losses experienced during the rest of the twentieth century and beyond, as global warming continued and intensified.
Except it didn’t “continue and intensify” as a couple of decades after 1920 it began to get colder (the opposite of continued and intensifying warmth) and the ice grew (the opposite of continued and intensifying shrinking) until the 1970s when Mr Nimoy went “In Search of …the coming ice age”. Then it warmed up again, and the ice shrunk again until about 2007, it’s since seems to have leveled off and even grown a bit since then.
John Endicott: You seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between the trend and fluctuations.
The trend of Arctic sea ice loss since the early/mid twentieth century is obvious and indisputable. If you find solace in the fluctuations about that trend, then so be it. There is no indication that the trend has “levelled off”, let alone grown, however much you may for that to be the case:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/09_Sep/N_09_extent_anomaly_plot_hires_v3.0.png
Hmmmn.
Your 1979 “straight line extrapolation” value is higher than any recorded anomaly.
Your final straight line extrapolation is below most recent (last twelve years) values.
Yet you want us to believe a straight line extrapolation is correct. Why?
Rather, the first twent years of the 40-year record since 1979 are near-flat: declining less than 5% from the high in 1982.
The last 12 years of the 40 year are increasing.
Thus, the Arctic sea ice dminimum follow a cyclic path: High plateau peaking 1982-1985, declining to a low point 2006-2007, then beginning an increase between 2007 and 2018.
PACook: You do not appear to understand linear regression, which is the statistical procedure that gives rise to the dashed line in the graph of September Northern Hemisphere Extent Anomalies I posted earlier.
There is no extrapolation involved. Linear regression simply shows the overall trend of a series of data points, whatever those data points represent. Unless the operator makes an arithmetical mistake, the result is always “correct”, just as adding a list of numbers is always correct if no mistake is made.
You may wish to delude yourself that you can see patterns of change developing in the information about Arctic sea ice extent, but none of your suggestions have any statistical significance and your suggestion of cyclical change has no statistical merit.
thank you