Climate Change: The Science & Global Impact" by @MichaelEMann

Who wants to take it? 

Think of the awesome guest posts you could write.

Advertisements

100 thoughts on “Climate Change: The Science & Global Impact" by @MichaelEMann

    • It is. There is a [social] consensus. And groups like Pew Charitable Trusts are presenting “polls” to confer that more Americans are conforming.

    • Irreversible, my Fat Aunt Harriet. Mikey has to stop wishing for global cooling, He might get it and he won’t like it.

      N.B.: I like warm, Hooman-friendly weather and being able to not have to bundle up in thermals and thick sweaters all the time. I want to see honeybees (and wild bees) out hunting for nectar in April, and not have to keep the furnace running until the beginning of June.

      • Right Sara? If its irreversible why all the hullabaloo? Nothing you can do anyway but learn to adapt. Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are certainly going to make adaption more comfortable.

        I thank the sun gods everyday that we are warming and not entering the next ice age. Now that would be brutal.

        • Then all those northward traveling Canadian Climate Refugees would need to travel south as True Climate Refugees along with the rest of the Canucks. I wonder if the Inuit would need to travel far??

    • some things are settled
      we landed on the moon
      planes took the towers down
      the earth aint flat
      c02 is a GHG
      GHGs warm the planet

      Some things are bounded but not settled

      doubing c02 will get us between 1.5 and 4.5C of warming.
      the damage from warming could be low, could be moderate, could be high.

      There is no need to deny the settled things when there is much to rationally debate in the bounded but not settled areas. why act the clown like some flat earther?

      • “doubing c02 will get us between 1.5 and 4.5C of warming.”

        No, it won’t Steven. CO2 was greater than now at 540ppm at Giessen, Germany in August 1940, and the climate became colder over the next three decades.

        • The counter argument would be that localized surface GHGs are relatively unimportant, as the GHG effect is a large scale variable that could easily be swallowed by any individual local variations.

          So Giessen cooled, but some other location warmed as a result.

          That’s why local temperatures by themselves are not useful, you need all of the temperatures.

          There’s a somewhat famous example where a teacher mounted a metal disk with one end near a fire, and had students come in and measure the temperatures and explain why they got the measurements they did. Each student measured the temperature nearer the fire as cooler than the side further away, and each came up with some mumbo jumbo about why that would be (often using “convection”). In reality, the teacher had simply rotated the disk right before they walked in, and the test was to see if they could explain results that were unexpected – trying to explain it meant they didn’t understand the underlying theories, since none of them could account for the observed measurements.

          It’s the same issue with GHGs and temperature: you need all of the measurements, over time, to have any chance of constructing a model that tracks reality. And we just don’t have that even for temperature and GHG, let alone all of the other factors that we know matter, let alone the factors that matter that we don’t even know about.

          • False argument on your part, because the cooling was Global in extent and not just in Germany between the heat of the 1930s to the cold of the 1940s to ~1979. The old argument that the CO2 was not properly observed and measured or that it did not represent the background levels of atmospheric CO2 is disingenuous as well. The Keelings like to not measure atmospheric CO2 in the places where most of it exists in the atmosphere at surface levels, and they homogenize the record to disguise the peak levels which would demonstrate >400ppm levels of CO2 prior to the more recent period and more consistent with the Giessen, Germany 1940 records and recent records of ambient CO2 in Paris, France. Consequently, you analogy to CO2 is an entirely false anaolgy with respect to the last two centuries of CO2 measurements.

          • doubing c02 will get us between 1.5 and 4.5C of warming.

            Not without rewriting the Laws of Physics Steve. A natural system cannot have a more than 100% feedback without being unstable and going to the extreme. In the case of climate, a snowball or Venus. Neither of these has happened in the last 4 billion years, ergo the system is not unstable. From that, it logically follows that the feedbacks cannot be above 100%.

            Feedbacks that respond to temperature rise cannot differentiate between the cause of the temperature rise and so respond to themselves as well as the initial cause. I would ballpark that about 2.1 degrees would be the maximum.

      • Steve, thanks for your extended comment. However, I don’t see the proponents of GW / AGW / CAGW / CC / CCC / CE willing to “rationally debate” anything, even the mere bounded prognostications.

        “… the damage from warming could be low, could be moderate, could be high …” You are correct, and that is one of the issues with Climate Science – all pronouncements of doom are “could” or “may”. When I was studying science, we were taught that we had to provide some idea of the certainty of our results. “High confidence” doesn’t cut it.

      • “oubing c02 will get us between 1.5 and 4.5C of warming.
        the damage from warming could be low, could be moderate, could be high.”

        Or it could be beneficial. That one always seems to be left out.

      • Mosher
        You said, “doubing c02 will get us between 1.5 and 4.5C of warming.” You state it as though it is settled. From what I read, it is NOT settled. It seems highly improbable that the range is less than zero, and improbable that it is greater than 10. But, that still leaves a lot of room for the extent to which CO2 contributes to warming, and just what the bounds are on all the GHG contributions. After all, CO2 is not the only GHG, and things like water vapor, methane, and exotic synthetic gases are also increasing.

      • Mosher, You omitted the more likely possibility. The warming could be so mild that it has an undetectable impact on Earth’s biosphere, or even a net beneficial impact. Additional atmospheric CO2 is, without question, a net benefit due to the fact that it is plant food (global greening). “Beneficial warming” is the more likely scenario because we have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for over one hundred years and the amount of warming that the IPCC attributes to CO2 (50% +) was very mild. If the warming had all occurred at once, few life forms would be able to even detect it, much less be adversely affected by it. The world is greener (i.e. more alive) that it used to be and only imperceptibly warmer. We don’t need fancy models for the physics or the economics. We have already, unwittingly, conducted the experiment and the results shows that CO2 is nothing to worry about. Our best course of action is to spend time and money on things that really matter, like bringing the developing world out of abject poverty. We have been quite successful in the past 50 years, due to wealth created in large part by our use of fossil fuels, but there is still much work to be done.

      • Models say 1.5 – 4.5C.
        Actual real world science says 0.2 to 0.3C.

        Of course when your income depends on the models being right, they will always be right.

      • Only a layman like Mosher would make the statement “bounded but not settled” if your theory is incomplete it can’t bound anything. Even simple things like ocean waves that seem to have “bounds” would get caught when suddenly ships would get destroyed by “rogue wave”.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave

        The bottom line is if it isn’t full described it isn’t bounded.

    • He blocked me on Twitter and I never used any ad hominems in any of my tweets on the threads that he was on.

  1. “Marlo Lewis: Climate questions for politicians (that no one seems to want to ask)”

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marlo-lewis-climate-questions-for-democrats-that-no-one-seems-to-want-to-ask

    “In the United States, there has been no increase in flood magnitudes in any region since the 1920s, and no nationwide increase in drought since 1900 as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index.

    There has been no trend since 1900 in the strength or frequency of U.S. land-falling hurricanes, and none in hurricane-related damages once losses are adjusted for increases in population, wealth, and the consumer price index.”

    • A good question to ask the candidates is “Would you share with us how you have seen the climate change during your lifetime, and how has it affected you?”

      • Better question are: “What about China and India increasing emissions while the USA is reducing emissions? What good will screwing our economy do when they keep increasing emissions?”

      • A followup question.
        “Why do you limit “climate change” to what you have observed in your lifetime?”

  2. wow thats so deep and intense…not!
    2 to 4hrs a week for 8 weeks
    guess he needs to make some spondulicks to pay his legal bills n pay the costs awarded against him?

  3. I would, but it so happens I have a root canal, colostomy, and heart surgery scheduled for then.
    Darn.

  4. This course is affiliated with edX, a great operation. They offer free courses in just about everything from just about everybody. You can take computer science courses from Harvard University, engineering from MIT, and on and on. I cannot recommend it highly enough. They even have a wide variety of chemistry courses, just the ticket. And it is all free.

    Unfortunately:
    This course is run by SDG Academy.
    SDG is Sustainable Developmental Goals. As in the United Nations Agenda 2030.
    Here is the link:
    https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

    SDG Academy is sponsored by the United Nations.
    From their website:

    The SDG Academy is the online education platform of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), a global initiative for the United Nations.

    And the link to SDG Academy:
    https://sdgacademy.org/

    • They prb’ly should pay people to tolerate the “course”. Might be worth some kind of psychological-stress/response study.

  5. Climate Alarmism 101.
    Topics covered.
    – How a minor trace gas increase summons the 4 Horsemen of the Climpocalypse
    – Taking a conclusion and building a sciency sounding narrative around it.
    – Uncertainty? Why We don’t need stinking uncertainty
    – Consensus science and the road to tenure in the 21st Century
    – Why your billionaire betters need you to obey for their children
    – Building the better hockey stick : Lies, damn lies, and statistics
    – Attribution, in computer models we trust… because we said so
    – The Green New Deal and a better 2 class society
    – Climate leity to priesthood, always trust Big Brother
    – Why Renewable energy and the road to virtue and salvation needs your 401K

    • – Climate leity to priesthood, always trust Big Brother –>
      – Climate deity to priesthood, always trust Big Brother

      • I misspelled “laity.”

        Laity
        A layperson is a person who is not qualified in a given profession and/or does not have specific knowledge of a certain subject. In religious organizations, the laity consists of all members who are not members of the clergy, usually including any non-ordained members of religious institutes, e.g. a nun or lay brother.

  6. What people say to pollsters is one thing…actually doing what the polls imply they said…is different. There is “virtue” peer pressure afloat for sure regarding “Climate”. You’re not a good person if you don’t believe in “doing something” about the climate.

    But in the real world I don’t see anybody actually doing anything different in their lives to “fix the climate”.

    Once the citizens start visibly paying one or two hundred $$ a month for climate…they are going to become willing to hear more about the truth of the matter. It will become an easier sell.

    And when simple 4th grade arithmetic calculations reveal that that extra $100 a month will do “diddly minus squat” to global temperatures out to 100 years, there will be strong resistance. And hopefully the next cooling phase will arrive to finally slay this monster.

    The International Socialists will find another issue to attack nationalism and freedom with – probably another trans border environmental issue. It will be hard to find an issue more impactful than the CO2 thing…awfully clever. But they will have the Press and taxpayer supported Academia and the Entertainment Industry out there doing the daily footwork in the long struggle against the indivudual and individual freedoms.

    Don’t expect the Republicans to fight for the truth in the Climate non-debate. Apparently the big money in both the Republican and Democrat camps are agreeable to employing this fraud as a means of controlling the masses…and using government funds to further enrich themselves.

  7. “most damaging and irreversible climate change impacts on people and planet.”

    A rather definitive statement proving the course is not about science at all.

  8. This is gonna be great. Did you guys know that if you were able to capture and reuse all the solar radiation in 1m^2 at the top of the atmosphere you could power a refridgerator all day!

  9. “Who wants to take it? “

    How much are they willing to pay? I’m open to all unreasonably large offers.

  10. As the old saying goes, if you intend to sup with the devil make sure you have a very long hockey stick….sorry I meant spoon.

  11. Excellent. Will someone ask him why he wouldn’t provide the data that the court ask for during his slander case.

  12. Got to love this section:
    “Module 2: Observing and Measuring Anthropogenic Climate Change”
    Wow, there is a way to measure the anthropogenic contribution? *facepalm*

  13. Mann is in the Z list of atmospheric scientists, I don’t even consider him to be one given his laughably incorrect attempted explanations of meteorological events in the recent past like the one he got backwards and was corrected by Joe Bastardi on, no wonder it’s free, though you get a cert if you cough up 44 euro 😀

  14. It could be that the Brits who have moved to the Costa del Sol are climate refugees. They have moved to a preferable climate.

  15. About this course

    Climate change is arguably the greatest challenge of our time. Human activity has already warmed the planet by one degree Celsius relative to pre-industrial times, and we are feeling the effects through record heat waves, droughts, wildfires and flooding. If we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, the planet will reach two degrees of warming by 2050 – the threshold that many scientists have identified as a dangerous tipping point. What is the science behind these projections?

    One degree! … whoooo, even if it were possible to actually, physically prove this, then so what? — ONE DEGREE !!

    And all those claimed record extreme events are provably wrong, wrong, WRONG.

    TWO degrees!! … double whoooo, even if possible to prove, then, again, so-the-hell what? — TWO DEGREES !!

    “many scientists” ? … CORRECTION: “many politicized scientists” [and I might even need single quotes inside the double quotes of “scientists”]

    “dangerous tipping point” ? … please, exaggerate much? — of all the … “scientists” … included in the claim, how many of them would use the phrase, “dangerous tipping point”?

    But, if Dr. Mann would pay for my air fare, hotel, food, rental car and all other high-carbon-footprint requirements to attend the course, then, hey, I’d show up. I wonder what the carbon footprints of all the attendees will be.

    • Oh, it’s an online course. How superficial of me to miss that important detail. I just committed strawman sarcasm. I hope you can forgive me, since whenever I see anything representative of Dr. Mann’s positive achievements, I tend to skim over the writing, since my sense of his positive achievements is negative.

      I’ll do better next time.

      • I signed up for the course, by the way, because I want to see how he presents his case.

        He might rest assured that if his case is good enough, then I will be a convert.

        So Doc, if you happen to read this, then let’s see what you’ve got — I will view it all with a rational consciousness for finding the evidence.

  16. I signed up for the edX Mann course. Interesting stuff. Where can I find similar content not Mann colored?

Comments are closed.