Rood and Kim named to leadership positions in Net Zero World Action Center

DOE/ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Multiple national laboratories, with direction from Argonne experts, join U.S. federal agencies and other partners to advance net zero energy system goals.

Marcy Rood and Hyekyung (Clarisse) Kim of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory will help lead a multilaboratory effort to accelerate global energy system decarbonization and worldwide investment in net zero energy systems. Rood, an environmental transportation analyst, will serve as the deputy director and chief operating officer of the Net Zero World Action Center, and Kim, a physicist and principal scientist, will act as its deputy manager for technical programs.  

The Net Zero World Action Center furthers the goals of the Net Zero World Initiative launched by U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm and Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry at the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties on Nov. 3. With the initiative, partnering nations can harness the powerful resources of DOE laboratories, federal agencies, think tanks, businesses and universities to develop clean energy projects that promote net zero, resilient, just and inclusive energy systems. Argentina, Chile, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria and Ukraine have joined the United States in the initiative. 

“The national laboratories have the expertise, facilities and partnerships to accelerate the decarbonization of the global energy system and mitigate the impacts of climate change.” — Paul Kearns, Argonne laboratory director

“Argonne proudly supports Marcy and Clarisse in their leadership roles with the Net Zero World Action Center,” said Argonne Laboratory Director Paul Kearns. “The national laboratories have the expertise, facilities and partnerships to accelerate the decarbonization of the global energy system and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Marcy and Clarisse, through their work with Net Zero World Partners, will contribute to highly tailored, actionable technology road maps and investment strategies that put our net zero emission goals within reach.” 

Rood joins an executive leadership team that includes a Deputy Director and Chief Technology Officer from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and an Executive Director from National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Together, they will manage a team from multiple DOE labs, including Argonne, NREL, PNNL, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  

Rood has more than 25 years of experience in the DOE Vehicle Technologies Office’s Technical Integration program and its national Clean Cities Coalition Network, in which she coordinated teams working on a range of clean vehicle technologies and systems. She has an exceptional record of collaborating with international, national, state and local stakeholders to increase U.S. economic, environmental and energy security. Most recently, she was recognized as a Chicago Area Clean Cities Clean Fuels Champion for her long-term commitment to advancing energy security, clean fuel and clean air, one fleet and one consumer at a time. 

“Marcy brings substantial clean energy program management, analysis and stakeholder engagement expertise to her role,” said Bruce Hamilton, Argonne’s Net Zero World Lab lead and Global Energy Solutions program lead in the Energy Systems division.  

Hamilton, who will coordinate Argonne’s technical expertise for the Net Zero World Action Center as country work programs are formulated, noted that both Rood and Kim were selected from a highly qualified pool of interested applicants.  

Kim, working alongside a technical programs team manager from LBNL, will be responsible for coordinating cross-laboratory teams and for planning and implementing support to various countries. Kim brings to the role her systems-level perspective, leadership in interdependent modeling for infrastructure resilience, and understanding of global critical material supply chains and energy technology deployment strategies. She will coordinate with country teams and U.S. government and international programs to ensure effective scoping and implementation of technical work programs. 

“As a partner in the Net Zero World Initiative, and through the involvement of Marcy and Clarisse, Argonne has the opportunity to demonstrate its leadership in decarbonization technical assistance,” said Hamilton. “They can ensure our science has continuing societal impact by supporting informed decision making on global transition to net zero emissions.” ​

Argonne National Laboratory seeks solutions to pressing national problems in science and technology. The nation’s first national laboratory, Argonne conducts leading-edge basic and applied scientific research in virtually every scientific discipline. Argonne researchers work closely with researchers from hundreds of companies, universities, and federal, state and municipal agencies to help them solve their specific problems, advance America’s scientific leadership and prepare the nation for a better future. With employees from more than 60 nations, Argonne is managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, visit https://​ener​gy​.gov/​s​c​ience.

2 8 votes
Article Rating
117 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 4, 2022 2:08 pm

Any “scientist” who signs on to Kerry’s constraints on energy production, notably no nukes, is being a political hack.

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 4, 2022 4:08 pm

Nuclear energy had its chance and simply blew it. It takes far too long to build and is outrageously expensive to operate. And there’s still no sustainable waste storage solution. In ten years, nuclear will be an afterthought.

Last edited 6 months ago by Barry Anthony
Duane
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 4, 2022 5:40 pm

The “too long to build” is purely an American government invention not true anywhere else in the world, due to horrible licensing burdens unique to the US … and obviously having nothing to do with technology.

Nukes are actually one of the cheapest energy sources we have … far cheaper than coal, and cheaper than conventional gas plants.

Get your story straight!!

Duane
Reply to  Duane
March 4, 2022 5:43 pm

France is the most heavily dependent nations on nuke power on the planet (80% nuke power sourced), yet their electrical power rates are among the cheapest in the world – about 30% cheaper on average than in the US

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Duane
March 4, 2022 7:07 pm

yet their electrical power rates are among the cheapest in the world – about 30% cheaper on average than in the US

That’s not true.

First, home electricity rates in France are over 20 cents per KWh, while the 2021 average in the US was 10.59 cents.

https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/France/electricity_prices/

and

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/?fbclid=IwAR1qVX_ULakvOdUWyv9ka-zpF0rnxo7Dr0lEWeuRA0a6aqEJ3TZ0l16xMss

Second, France HEAVILY subsidizes their government-owned energy grid to a level they refuse to even release publicly. Estimates vary, but all of them are in the area of at least $90 per MWh. This would put the cost of France’s electricity in line with the guaranteed retail pricing of Britain’s Hinckley nuclear projects, and at least 3x the cost of wind and solar.

Just to be clear, nuclear energy is the most expensive source of electrical generation in the world.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 4, 2022 9:11 pm

Are you suggesting that wind turbines and solar farms aren’t being subsidized?

Iain Reid
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 4, 2022 11:53 pm

Barry,

that is again untrue at least in the U.K. Dr Gordon Hughes researched and analysed company accounts (Over 300 publicly available accounts) for renewable generators and the Mwatt hour cost of generation exceeds that of nuclear.
One factor, as mentioned earlier is the inordinately long time they take to build and so makes the finance expensive. Nuclear fuel is very cheap and the life of such plants is long.
I have no partcular axe to grind for nuclear except that when all cost are factored it is not the most expensive electricity. I apprciate the negatives but as my earlier post states it is Hobson’s choice for non CO2 emitting generation.

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Iain Reid
March 5, 2022 7:54 am

U.K. Dr Gordon Hughes researched and analysed company accounts (Over 300 publicly available accounts) for renewable generators and the Mwatt hour cost of generation exceeds that of nuclear.

The “paper” to which you refer was written at the behest of a fossil fuel front/climate science Denial organization, the now-defunct Global Warming Policy Foundation. Not surprisingly, the conclusions Hughes magically arrives upon are damning for wind power, while being completely unrelated to real-world data such as:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-are-30-50-cheaper-than-thought-admits-uk-government

And…

https://www.lazard.com/media/451881/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf

And…

https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=30d&interval=1d

And…

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-solar-and-storage-still-cheapest-by-far-latest-csiro-gencost-report-says-34929/?fbclid=IwAR0LGyg083nnfzTCznrIp6mFIcEobWti-Lpoh-KjBboUSfAnoYXnfRsQ9n0

And…

https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/

And…

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#78dec7c931f3

Any questions?

Drake
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 5, 2022 11:55 am

So now provide links to an analysis done including the cost to provide dispatchable energy when the sun is not shining for solar, and the wind is not blowing for wind.

You know, provide the charges that SHOULD be charged to unreliable providers to provide reliable electricity to include the LCOE of the back up energy facilities.

You, know, the expensive Gas Peaking Plants. The expensive Batteries, if ever built. Etc.

So easy to claim what you have when unreliables are really unnecessary. NO ONE would use them, except in a few, remote or otherwise suitable locations, if they were not extensively subsidized and/or the purchase of the output was not required by law and to be the FIRST energy supply to be used.

As I have said before, unreliables are a NET DEFICIT to the overall wealth of human society Money spent on unreliables is responsible for children starving, people living in cardboard boxes, people unable to afford shoes and clothes, etc. etc.

In my opinion, your love of leftist ideals is only exceeded by your hatred for the poor.

Just sayin.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 5, 2022 7:35 pm

The “paper” to which you refer was written at the behest of a fossil fuel front/climate science Denial organization, the now-defunct Global Warming Policy Foundation.

That is basically an ad hominem attack, even if true. Can you come up with some specific complaints, and the facts or logic to dispute them?

wadesworld
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 5, 2022 8:16 pm

So given the incredibly cheap cost of wind and solar, energy prices are plummeting across the UK, correct?

Andrew Lale
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 11, 2022 8:48 am

Yes, there are a lot of publications who have prostituted themselves to whoever it is running the Climate Grift.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 5, 2022 1:41 am

Not nice to present some values biased to be compared to others that are not!…

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Duane
March 4, 2022 7:16 pm

The “too long to build” is purely an American government invention not true anywhere else in the world, 

That’s completely false.

Britain’s Hinckley Point C, France’s Flamanville 3, and Finland’s Olkiluoto are just 3 of the latest examples of nuclear project boondoggles that have overrun their schedules and budgets by an order of magnitude. And South Korea’s program, once considered to be the industry’s greatest hope for a renaissance, is now being all but dismantled after a string of billion-dollar debacles.
Nuclear energy had its chance, and blew it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 4, 2022 9:14 pm

You are talking as though nuclear energy was a sentient being that made mistakes. It was the paranoid Luddites that imposed impossible constraints on the technology and drove up prices.

Scissor
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 4, 2022 7:09 pm

I propose to make wind turbine blades and PV solar panels out of nuclear waste since in the end they will be land filled.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 4, 2022 9:10 pm

And there’s still no sustainable waste storage solution.

France manages its waste without any particular difficulties. You can thank then President Carter for turning US waste disposal into an intractable political problem. How about them Dems? Are they smart or what?

Drake
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 5, 2022 11:59 am

Yep, the US has a law against reprocessing nuclear fuel. Why, to make sure there will always be a problem to use in the next election.

That is why politicians, left and RINO, hated TRUMP!. He was fixing the problems he campaigned on fixing. You can’t have that, government might get smaller and put ex politician/government lobbyists out of their jobs.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 4, 2022 11:45 pm

Barry,

if non emitting CO2 generation is required there is no alternative, it simply has to be nuclear. Nothing else works except for the very few countries whose hydro capacity is equal to their demand.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 5, 2022 1:38 am

Your arguments are at least 30 years old!

Times changed, technology was improved, costs of operation dropped.

In what alternative universe were you living in the last 30 years?

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Joao Martins
March 5, 2022 7:38 am

Times changed, technology was improved, costs of operation dropped.

Please refer to page 8 and point out to us where “costs of operation dropped.”

https://www.lazard.com/media/451881/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf

Andrew Lale
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 11, 2022 8:45 am

What about small scale/modular nukes, being developed in both the UK and the US? Or don’t you know anything outside of bumper sticker deep thort?

Mr.
March 4, 2022 2:16 pm

The corporate blurb always reads as if these appointees are stepping up because they have a special vocation to fulfil –
“we’re on a mission from god”

Reality however, is more likely that they’ve scored these sweet 6-figure gigs at last, so they’ll say and do whatever they have to to ride these gigs all the way to a fat retirement income.

Full disclosure – I wish I could say that in my corporate positions in years past I could honestly say that I’ve delivered a management presentation to staff and never said to myself afterwards –
“what a load of crap you just spewed, Mr.”

But I can’t.

Anyone else had the same experiences?

Reply to  Mr.
March 4, 2022 3:21 pm

“Anyone else had the same experiences?”
It was usually others who spewed it, and everyone looked at me for the appropriate one-liner response. When I stopped doing the responses people thought that I must be ill, but I was just arranging a deal to be paid off, shut up and go away. I got paid off, but came back as an independent consultant and advocate. The spewers tried to talk people out of employing my services, but that simply resulted in more people asking me for help, so I kept quiet about that.
(I do feel the need to have one or two defensive weapons nearby.)

Last edited 6 months ago by Martin Clark
March 4, 2022 2:16 pm

The DOE national labs are all contractor operated so someone is paying for all this noise and junk. Let’s see the account books.

Gregory Woods
March 4, 2022 2:32 pm

Our most pressing challenge seems to be an overabundance of climate warming alarmists…..

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Gregory Woods
March 4, 2022 2:59 pm

Maybe we could cull a few….

Drake
Reply to  Gregory Woods
March 5, 2022 12:01 pm

a few million?

Chris Hanley
March 4, 2022 2:34 pm

Their appointments could be based on criteria other than expertise excellence — a sexist/racist might say!

Ron Long
March 4, 2022 2:35 pm

Well isn’t that special.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 4, 2022 2:35 pm

The swamp just gets larger and deeper.

Rud Istvan
March 4, 2022 2:38 pm

There will be zero net zero results.

I worked with Argonne as they were partnered with CAER at U Ky, where my initial electrocarbon experiments were conducted on my nickel (sponsored research based on filed patent applications). Useless.

The only decent Gov lab in the whole energy arena based on 10 years of personal experience was Naval Research Lab Carderrock (because Navy ships and forward deployed Marines have real interesting electrical energy needs). Got a $3million grant from them and then used more than half to fund extensive prototype device testing there using carbons from my lab line at CAER. NREL was beyond utterly useless, as the Argonne announcement confirms.

Rick C
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 4, 2022 6:07 pm

Rud: ~50 years ago I worked at Fermi as an student tech and over the years visited Argonne, Lawrence Berkeley, Oakridge, Brookhaven and Los Alamos. In those days the Federal Labs still employed real scientists who worked on big physics projects. They were largely responsible for the practical peaceful development of nuclear power. Hardly anyone outside the nuclear and particle physics research community was even aware of their existence or purpose. Too bad to see them turned into political pawns in the anti-fossil fuel campaign. These days they seem to be populated by post-Docs who are unemployable in the private sector. But maybe they’ll make it clear that nuclear energy is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels. Maybe even point out that decarbonoization is a pointless goal — nah.

Scissor
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 4, 2022 7:13 pm

Hey, did you know Burt Davis at CAER?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Scissor
March 5, 2022 10:49 am

Met him. My researcher was Steve Lipka and his lab.

Scissor
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 5, 2022 3:13 pm

Cheers

alastair gray
March 4, 2022 2:38 pm

I read the article with zero comprehension of anything of substance
Word soup would be too flattering a description of this vacuous prose.

In UK we have organisations called QUANGO’s Quasi Autonomous Non Government Organisations. These are synecures for the chums of the people in power. A 6 figure salary for one or 2 days a week work. An example might be Paula Ventell CBE. She presided over the UK post office prosecutions of 800 postmasters wrongly accused of gross theft which was known by the organisation to be attributable to Software errors in their program. As a reward for the malicious destruction of 800 lives and several suicides she was rewarded with a royal honour and several Quango positions.

You Yanks have a lot to learn from us Brits about moral turpitude in office but you are getting there.

Mr.
Reply to  alastair gray
March 4, 2022 2:54 pm

The Yanks don’t need QUANGOs.
They’ve still got The Swamp.

Dan
Reply to  alastair gray
March 4, 2022 3:37 pm

“I read the article with zero comprehension of anything of substance
Word soup would be too flattering a description of this vacuous prose.”

I agree “…stakeholder engagement expertise…”???

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dan
March 4, 2022 9:19 pm

Academese, with an Ivy League accent.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  alastair gray
March 4, 2022 9:18 pm

You’ve been at it longer. I have no doubt we will catch up. We’ve learned a few tricks from Joe and Hunter.

Drake
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 5, 2022 12:06 pm

I think Obama, bringing the Chicago system to DC, brought us a lot closer.

Vuk
March 4, 2022 2:41 pm

A casual acquittance recently asked me to explain what is exactly meant by the ‘net zero’.
I outlined the idea of it, but added there another ‘net zero’ associated with it, and that is that the mostly likely it is going to be a ‘net zero’ effect on climate whatever we do about it.
The conversation quickly moved to electric vehicles, lithium battery fires and climate change.
Moving from the initial: “I’m determined to do whatever is needed to do my bit”
to the final: “I have to think a bit more about all this”
I thought it was a well spent 40 minutes of my time.

Right-Handed Shark
March 4, 2022 3:00 pm

Net cost.
Zero benefit.

Last edited 6 months ago by Right-Handed Shark
Andy Pattullo
March 4, 2022 3:20 pm

When someone sane and competent comes into power these stories will make it clear who to push off the boat. Anyone who compromises scientific integrity and the safety/economy of their nation to peddle unfounded propaganda doesn’t deserve a single dime from taxpayers or a single punctuation mark in the scientific literature.

Randle Dewees
March 4, 2022 3:35 pm

Stuffed Shirts

John in Oz
March 4, 2022 3:37 pm

There have been many analyses on this site and other blogs that explain the impossibility of moving to all electric electricity grid/vehicle fleet/residential heating/etc in the time-frame of 30 years or so.

Why is it that ‘experts’ such as those mentioned in this post do not reach the same conclusions?

I presume (dangerous, I know) they are sufficiently numerate to do the same or similar analyses. However, they appear to be have a political mind-set in that an announcement is considered sufficient for a policy to be worthwhile, possible and worthy of our efforts to achieve, with no cost-benefit figures and no real-world plan to achieve their lofty ambitions.

Perhaps we could as Kamala for a simple explanatioon that we can all understand, as she did recently regarding Ukraine/Russia

Rud Istvan
Reply to  John in Oz
March 4, 2022 3:56 pm

If they told the truth they would not get the impossible to accomplish job. And since it is impossible, it will take at least until they retire to keep trying. Simples.

Mr.
Reply to  John in Oz
March 4, 2022 3:58 pm

With a giggle or three thrown in for extra credibility?

Iain Reid
Reply to  John in Oz
March 4, 2022 11:58 pm

John,

perhaps it is because these companies employ scientists rather than engineers?

Geoff Sherrington
March 4, 2022 3:58 pm

I have never met Rood or Kim and I have no idea of their allegiances.
I have met Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, to find a fascinating mind with experience that deserves respect.
Christopher describes control of the climate change lobby by agents loyal to another cause, but it is best to read him verbatim:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/03/the_strategic_threat_from_netzero_emissions_.html
It seems productive to read about climate change movements with your mind aware of what could be going on at the deeper, less-seen level that Christopher describes. I have long been concerned about what motivates scientists to abandon good, hard science to promote what is little more than a vague dream dressed up in jargon. Is it the money?
Geoff S

Dean Boulding
March 4, 2022 4:08 pm

It’s absolutely astonishing to me that you hacks are still on here, denying the obvious after all these years, and all this evidence. I know I can’t fight stupid, but really guys, give it up and move back to denying the world is a sphere or whatever you did previously.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Dean Boulding
March 4, 2022 4:17 pm

I agree with you, Dean. The net zero advocates need to stop denying reality and get a life.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dean Boulding
March 4, 2022 5:18 pm

“and all this evidence”

Got any to show?

No, you don’t have any evidence to show, because there is no evidence of Human-caused Climate Change to show.

We’re just waiting around here for someone to provide some evidence. So far: Nothing.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 4, 2022 6:24 pm

I doubt that the nitwit can even provide any evidence that he’s astonished.

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 4, 2022 6:52 pm

We’re just waiting around here for someone to provide some evidence. So far: Nothing.

What, specifically, would you consider to be credible evidence supporting AGW, Tom?

aussiecol
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 4, 2022 11:52 pm

Maybe you could specify something, anything???

Tom Abbott
Reply to  aussiecol
March 5, 2022 4:13 am

Yes, that would be enlightening if we could know what he considers credible evidence.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 5, 2022 4:08 am

“What, specifically, would you consider to be credible evidence supporting AGW, Tom?”

Credible evidence could be any number of things.

I know what is *not* credible evidence of Human-caused Climate Change: Everything presented so far.

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 5, 2022 7:34 am

Credible evidence could be any number of things.

Such as? Be specific, Tom. It’s poor form to claim there’s “no evidence” supporting AGW and then play coy when asked to clarify your definition of evidence? Please, share with us what you would consider to be credible evidence proving AGW.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 5, 2022 11:23 am

Aaaaah, the old tactical retreat from the scientific null hypothesis. The 10 or 15 year old phony meme that there is evidence that is never, ever followed by any evidence.

Why don’t you try some Barry – because you know you will get a butt-spanking ???

Barry Anthony
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 5, 2022 12:59 pm

Notice that Tom Abbott hasn’t responded to my question, Phil. Perhaps you can help him out. Please let us know what you would consider to be credible evidence proving AGW.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 5, 2022 5:50 pm

No. It’s not on me, it’s on you. Stop trying to run away and hide. You’re in full-view on here, pretending not to cower.

Show some evidence that you think is credible that conforms to the scientific method.

There isn’t any and you know it, and you know whatever lame-ass link you provide will be ripped to shreds by me or, more likely, by people who get the chance before me.

Barry Anthony
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 5, 2022 5:56 pm

No. It’s not on me, it’s on you. Stop trying to run away and hide. You’re in full-view on here, pretending not to cower.

Why would I “hide,” Phil? All I’m asking is that you pass along the criteria of what YOU feel is credible evidence. This will not only guide my provision of said evidence, it will prevent you from instantly moving the goalposts as is the time-honored Denier response when facing hard data that flattens their nonsensical convictions. But you know this is coming, which is why you’re refusing to provide the criteria.

Again, Phil, the ball is in the courts of both Tom Abbott and yourself: What would YOU accept as credible evidence of AGW? We’re still waiting.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 5, 2022 6:22 pm

Tactical retreat; The Sequel.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 6, 2022 1:04 am

Hard data, ha ha ha ha ha.

You weren’t the captain of your school debating team were you?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 6, 2022 2:39 am

You spoke too soon, Barry.

I usually give my comments about 24 hours before I go back and revisit them to see if any alarmists have been upset by my comments.

Drake
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 5, 2022 12:15 pm

OK Barry, one thing only.

The use of your religious dogma that CO2 does everything with regards to the global temperature anomaly to explain the beginning, middle and end of the Little Ice Age.

Since your high priests have been getting multi-millions in grants for over 30 years, someone must have proven your belief system with such a study by now.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 6, 2022 2:30 am

You don’t seem to understand the role of the skeptic.

A skeptic doesn’t provide evidence of anything, rather, a skeptic critiques the “evidence” others present.

Present some evidence and we will look it over and decide if we agree.

BA: “Please, share with us what you would consider to be credible evidence proving AGW. ”

I think if temperatures were to climb along with CO2 amounts climbing, then that would be pretty good evidence that there was a connection.

Unfortunately for the alarmist position, the CO2 amounts are increasing, while the temperatures are cooling (0.7C since the 2016 highpoint), and the temperatures today, with more CO2 in the atmosphere, are no warmer than the temperatures in the past, with less CO2 in the atmosphere, so CO2 does not appear to be the determining factor with regard to the Earth’s temperatures.

Last edited 6 months ago by Tom Abbott
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 6, 2022 8:46 am

Tom,

Very well said.

And there is the paleoclimatology evidence of Earth’s CO2 levels in the past being in the 6,000-8,000 ppm range without any evidence of a runaway “greenhouse effect” or eliminating life from Earth and with obvious evidence that Earth recovered just fine, without any human intervention, from such high CO2 levels.

It is amazing (actually stunning) what AGW/CAGW proponents are willing to overlook to support a failed meme.

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 6, 2022 9:47 am

First and foremost, you’re not demonstrating the conduct of a “skeptic.” 

A skeptic questions all findings and methods. The scientific method is by its very nature brutally skeptical. But a skeptic accepts and understands conclusive data supporting a finding when all is said and done. Deniers, in turn, IGNORE any and all evidence outside of their confirmation bias. Deniers, therefore, can’t claim to be skeptics at all.

That aside, to our points: 

Just to be clear, the planet continues to warm as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise. That’s not remotely up for debate.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This is not due to natural drivers, which would actually be very slightly cooling the planet. 

comment image
 
And… 
 
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2503/
 
The role of atmospheric CO2 resulting from human activity in increasing the planet’s surface temperatures has been exhaustively and empirically proven:
 
“These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.”  http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
 
We know that previous warming events during the Holocene were NOT global, nor were they warmer than the temperatures of today:

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2.epdf?referrer_access_token=xs_FoltchG1ElxmYWupGedRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OFAuvUf3smNPgQh_x6w3tkX-JXRoLf0zBLgBVwxe-KovvXwPjnWRJnrJy2Y5m5vHRWt9UXT1S7dk9V9bEvrUWs3UEoiDE0Ti7EI2Lpl9dOwD3P_d5YEPO1wr_SvN10GUXV3nJWBX52zMbeHMyZHGMGljR04OPdeiH4NxCMrcLqMLu90J_Y5AxP-r6xROVMWS92CtKGcKpSbK8j8hCPWhcbd2XpVD24TKS6Hrw-vAhDzA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.latimes.com&fbclid=IwAR3TbHxpG2HqdyPMdjbfsHJouuzaqggVErArsJ14c7XJVbHpFq01WVhfv-Q

And (Figure 3)…

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
 
And…
 
https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41586-020-03155-x

In addition to the reference to Mann’s original work, here are 50 other credible, independent, and peer-reviewed studies that either in whole or part corroborate his findings.

1. Mann ME, Bradley RS, and Hughes MK: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392(6678):779–787, 1998. dx.doi.org/10.1038/33859.

2. Jones PD, Briffa KR, Barnett TP, and Tett SFB: High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures. The Holocene 8(4):455–471, 1998. dx.doi.org/10.1191/095968398667194956.

3. Pollack HN, Huang S, and Shen, P-Y: Climate change record in subsurface temperatures: a global perspective. Science 282(5387) 279–281. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5387.279.

4. Mann ME, Bradley RS, and Hughes MK: Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical research letters 26(6):759–762, 1999. dx.doi.org/10.1029/1999GL900070.

5. Briffa KR: Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees. Quaternary Science Reviews 19(1):87–105, 2000. dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00056-6.

6. Crowley TJ and Lowery TS: How warm was the medieval warm period? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(1):51–54, 2000. dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51.

7. Huang S, Pollack HN, and Shen P-Y: Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature 403(6771):756–758, 2000. dx.doi.org/10.1038/35001556.

8. Jones PD, Osborn TJ, and Briffa KR: The evolution of climate over the last millennium. Science 292(5517):662–667, 2001. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900617.

9. Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC, Jones PD, Shiyatov SG, and Vaganov EA: Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106(D3):2929–2941, 2001. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900617.

10. Esper J, Cook ER, and Schweingruber FH: Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science 295(5563):2250–2253, 2002. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1066208.

11. Mann ME, Rutherford S, Bradley RS, Hughes MK, and Keimig FT: Optimal surface temperature reconstructions using terrestrial borehole data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 108(D7), 2003. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002532.

12. Mann ME and Jones PD: Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 30(15), 2003. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017814.

13. Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, and Schweingruber FH: Large-scale temperature inferences from tree rings: a review. Global and Planetary Change 40(1):11–26, 2004. dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00095-X.

14. Pollack HN and Smerdon JE: Borehole climate reconstructions: Spatial structure and hemispheric averages. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 109(D11):D11106, 2004. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004163.

15. Huang S: Merging information from different resources for new insight into climate change in the past and future. Geophysical Research Letters 31:L13205, 2004. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019781.

16. Jones PD and Mann ME: Climate over past millennia. Reviews of Geophysics 42(2):RG2002, 2004. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003RG000143.

17. Moberg A, Sonechkin DM, Holmgren K, Datsenko NM, and Karlén W: Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low-and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433(7026):613–617, 2005. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03265.

18. Oerlemans J: Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records. Science 308(5722):675–677, 2005. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1107046.

19. Rutherford S, Mann ME, Osborn TJ, Briffa KR, Jones PD, Bradley RS, and Hughes MK: Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere surface temperature reconstructions: sensitivity to method, predictor network, target season, and target domain. Journal of Climate 18(13):2308–2329, 2005. dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3351.1.

20. D’Arrigo R, Wilson R, and Jacoby G: On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 111(D3):D03103, 2006. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006352.

21. Osborn TJ and Briffa KR: The spatial extent of 20th-century warmth in the context of the past 1200 years. Science 311(5762):841–844, 2006. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1120514.

22. Viau AE, Gajewski K, Sawada MC, and Fines P: Millennial-scale temperature variations in North America during the Holocene. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) 111(D9):D09102, 2006. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006031.

23. Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Hyde WT, and Frame DJ: Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries. Nature 440(7087):1029–1032, 2006. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04679.

24. Smith CL, Baker A, Fairchild IJ, Frisia S, and Borsato A: Reconstructing hemispheric-scale climates from multiple stalagmite records. International journal of climatology 26(10):1417–1424, 2006. dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.1329.

25. Juckes MN, Allen MR, Briffa KR, Esper J, Hegerl GC, Moberg A, Osborn TJ, and Weber SL: Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation. Climate of the Past 3(4):591–609, 2007. dx.doi.org/10.5194/cp-3-591-2007.

26. Wahl ER and Ammann CM: Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence. Climatic Change 85(1–2):33–69, 2007. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7.

27. Huang SP, Pollack HN, and Shen P-Y: A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record. Geophysical Research Letters 35(13):L13703, 2008. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034187.

28. Lee TC, Zwiers FW, and Tsao M: Evaluation of proxy-based millennial reconstruction methods. Climate Dynamics 31(2–3):263–281, 2008. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0351-9.

29. Mann ME, Zhang Z, Hughes MK, Bradley RS, Miller SK, Rutherford S, and Ni F: Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(36):13252–13257, 2008. dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805721105.

30. Kaufman DS, Schneider DP, McKay NP, Ammann CM, Bradley RS, Briffa KR, Miller GH, Otto-Bleisner BL, Overpeck JT, and Vinther BM: Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling. Science 325(5945):1236–1239, 2009. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1173983.

31. Tingley MP and Huybers P: A Bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time. Part I: Development and applications to paleoclimate reconstruction problems. Journal of Climate 23(10):2759–2781, 2010. dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3015.1.

32. Ljungqvist FC: A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography 92(3):339–351, 2010. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x.

33. Goosse H, Crespin E, de Montety A, Mann ME, Renssen H, and Timmermann A: Reconstructing surface temperature changes over the past 600 years using climate model simulations with data assimilation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 115(D9), 2010. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012737.

34. Christiansen B and Ljungqvist FC: Reconstruction of the extratropical NH mean temperature over the last millennium with a method that preserves low-frequency variability. Journal of Climate 24(23):6013–6034, 2011. dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4145.1.

35. Ljungqvist FC, Krusic PJ, Brattström G, and Sundqvist HS: Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries. Climate of the Past 8(1):227–249, 2012. dx.doi.org/10.5194/cp-8-227-2012.

36. Christiansen B and Ljungqvist FC: The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability. Climate of the Past 8(2):765–786, 2012. dx.doi.org/10.5194/cp-8-765-2012.

37. PAGES 2k Consortium: Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia. Nature Geoscience 6(5):339–346, 2013. dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1797.

38. Marcott SA, Shakun JD, Clark PU, and Mix AC: A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Science 339(6124):1198–1201, 2013. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1228026.

39. Shi F, Yang B, Mairesse A, von Gunten L, Li J, Bräuning A, Yang F, and Xiao X: Northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction during the last millennium using multiple annual proxies. Climate Research 56:231–244, 2013. dx.doi.org/10.3354/cr01156.

40. Neukom R, Gergis J, Karoly DJ, Wanner H, Curran M, Elbert J, et al.: Inter-hemispheric temperature variability over the past millennium. Nature Climate Change 4(5):362-367, 2014. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2174.

41. Barboza L, Li B, Tingley MP, and Viens FG: Reconstructing past temperatures from natural proxies and estimated climate forcings using short-and long-memory models. The Annals of Applied Statistics 8(4):1966–2001, 2014. dx.doi.org/10.1214/14-AOAS785.

42. Tierney JE, Abram NJ, Anchukaitis KJ, Evans MN, Giry C, et al.: Tropical sea surface temperatures for the past four centuries reconstructed from coral archives. Paleoceanography 30(3):226–252, 2015. dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014PA002717.

43. Tingley MP and Huybers P: Heterogeneous warming of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures over the last 1200 years. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 120(9):4040–4056, 2015. dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022506.

44. Wilson R, Anchukaitis K, Briffa KR, Büntgen U, Cook E, D’Arrigo R, Davi N, Esper J, Frank D, Gunnarson B, and Hegerl G: Last millennium northern hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings: Part I: The long term context. Quaternary Science Reviews 134:1–8, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.12.005.

45. Xing P, Chen X, Luo Y, Nie S, Zhao Z, Huang J, and Wang S: The extratropical Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction during the last millennium based on a novel method. PLOS ONE 11(1):e0146776, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146776.

46. Abram NJ, McGregor HV, Tierney JE, Evans MN, McKay NP, Kaufman DS, Thirumalai K, and PAGES 2k Consortium: Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents. Nature 536(7617):411–418, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature19082.

47. Hakim GJ, Emile-Geay J, Steig EJ, Noone D, Anderson DM, Tardif R, Steiger N, and Perkins WA: The last millennium climate reanalysis project: Framework and first results. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 121(12):6745–64, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016JD024751.

48. Snyder CW: Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years. Nature 538(7624):226–28, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature19798.

49. Pei Q, Zhang DD, Li J, and Lee HF: Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction for the mid-to-late Holocene. Ttical and Applied Climatology 1–11, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1932-5.

50. Emile-Geay J, McKay NP, Kaufman DS, von Gunten L, Wang J, Anchukaitis KJ, Abram NJ, Addison JA, Curran MA, Evans MN, Henley BJ, et al.: A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era. Scientific Data 4:170088, 2017. dx.doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.88.

51. Marsicek J, Shuman BN, Bartlein PJ, Shafer SL, and Brewer S: Reconciling divergent trends and millennial variations in Holocene temperatures. Nature 554:92–96, 2018. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature25464.

We know atmospheric CO2 levels are now over 30%  higher than at any time in over 800,000 years:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

We know that the planet is warming faster than at any time in over 34 million years:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-hasnt-warmed-this-fast-in-tens-of-millions-of-years/?fbclid=IwAR3y3VC1d-t2S6aCEeyoTepc-Z5Ok2_LmKrIQ72bHxZCLZCb0WHBxwEWl5I
 
And we know that the rise in global average temperatures has been in lockstep with the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels since the Industrial Revolution. This addresses your criteria of, “I think if temperatures were to climb along with CO2 amounts climbing, then that would be pretty good evidence that there was a connection,” quite specifically.
 
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQSCO2&Temperature-Holocene02.jpg
 
I can save you some time, Tom: There is not a shred of credible, independent, and peer-reviewed research supporting the Denier narrative. None.

[I’ll let you have this one as you don’t have a habit of overly long comments-cr]

philincalifornia
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 6, 2022 3:53 pm

You would be better off being disgusted by the liars who make you spend time posting this shiite. You only get one life.

We know that previous warming events during the Holocene were NOT global, nor were they warmer than the temperatures of today:”

Hello …….

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 7, 2022 3:19 am

All Barry’s “evidence” is based on bogus, bastardized temperature records.

Barry, we have the real temperature record, the unmodified, regional, written, historcal temperature record which refutes all those bogus, bastardized, computer-generated Hockey Stick charts.

Here’s the real temperature profile of the Earth (Hansen 1999):

comment image

Do you see any unprecedented warming on that chart? I don’t either.

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 7, 2022 6:34 am

All Barry’s “evidence” is based on bogus, bastardized temperature records.

It should be noted that the actual raw temperature data NASA has gathered is slightly warmer than the post-processed results. Yes, this means that NASA’s processing (a common practice in research) actually provides more reliable telemetry that’s slightly cooler. So much for Big Denier Conspiracy Trope #1, hm?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine

And the chart in your post is yet another example of the tiresome practice of Denier cherry-picking. Those are US-specific temperatures. This page contains both US as well as GLOBAL average temperature charts from Hansen 1999.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research//briefs/1999_hansen_07/

Again, Tom, I can save you a lot more embarrassment: There is not a shred of credible, independent, and peer-reviewed research supporting the Denier narrative. None.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 7, 2022 7:25 am

Bit of a setback there Barry. I was thinking you were almost there with all that homework that you did. Let’s give it a try though. This will be the most painful step for you but, as they say whoever the fcuk they are, you have to be cruel to be kind.

Let’s try to keep it as easy as possible for you. No error bars required, not even three examples of “hard data”, your words. Please extract one bullet point from all of those fabulously sciency sounding articles that shows that CO2 levels going from 280ppm to 420-ish ppm have had any effect on any global climate parameter. Just one. In your own words and, as I said, I won’t even hold you to error bars.

Just think Barry, by this time tomorrow, you will be able to look at your bathroom mirror and be able to address the person to whom you refer with the perpendicular pronoun as the D-word. Lofty heights beckon.

PS No links, your own words or you get an F from me.

Last edited 6 months ago by philincalifornia
Barry Anthony
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 7, 2022 8:06 am

Please extract one bullet point from all of those fabulously sciency sounding articles that shows that CO2 levels going from 280ppm to 420-ish ppm have had any effect on any global climate parameter. 

Thanks for confirming that you didn’t read a single reference I provided.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 7, 2022 4:01 pm

I’ve read them before you nitwit.

Thanks for confirming that you are incapable of providing any evidence.

Relax though mate. If you had you would have been the first and, while I’m here, I’ll tell you something else – if any evidence does scratch its way out of the background noise, me or someone like me will be the first to tell you.

…. now go look in yer mirror and see an impotent incompetent.

Barry Anthony
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 7, 2022 5:37 pm

I’ve read them before you nitwit.

Now we all know that’s just nonsense. Even your closest comrades here are face-palming at just how ridiculous that claim.

If you’d read this collection with any intent towards understanding, you’d recognize the overwhelming evidence. But, then, the Denier mindset has nothing to do with understanding at all, does it?

But, again, thanks for confirming that there is absolutely nothing by way of conclusive evidence capable of penetrating your confirmation bias and overcoming your cognitive dissonance.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 7, 2022 11:51 pm

You really are a strange person Barry. You don’t even know that you can’t present any of the overwhelming evidence you bloviate about.

Bye bye. Enjoy your silly life.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 8, 2022 3:34 am

“Now we all know that’s just nonsense. Even your closest comrades here are face-palming at just how ridiculous that claim.

If you’d read this collection”

Barry, all those studies you cited have been examined at WUWT at one time or another. You are not presenting anything new. New to you, maybe, but not to those who have been reading WUWT for years.

It’s old, unsubstantiated news, Barry. Still unsubstantiated after all these years.

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 8, 2022 6:42 am

Barry, all those studies you cited have been examined at WUWT at one time or another. 

Would you happen to have a reference to the peer-reviewed research in a credible scientific journal that WUWT published that successfully contradicted any of the research I posted above? If so, I’d appreciate a DOI number(s).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 8, 2022 3:12 am

BA: “And the chart in your post is yet another example of the tiresome practice of Denier cherry-picking. Those are US-specific temperatures.”

Yes, that’s the U.S. regional chart, the most accurate written temperature record we have. It shows that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. It shows that CO2 is not an problem issue in the United States and North America.

BA: “This page contains both US as well as GLOBAL average temperature charts from Hansen 1999.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research//briefs/1999_hansen_07/

Well, I’ll be darned! That link wasn’t working last week. Thanks for showing me it is still working, I’ll probably use it in the future.

Please explain how the temperature profile of the U.S. looks so different from the computer-generated, instrument-era Hockey Stick profile on the right of the webpage. Hansen seems to think (in the text on the webpage) the U.S. and the rest of the world have taken different paths with regard to CO2 and temperatures. Such a lame excuse. Is that what you think, Barry? Do you think different areas of the globe have completely different temperature profiles?

BA: “Again, Tom, I can save you a lot more embarrassment:”

I’m not embarrassed, Barry. That’s wishful thinking on your part.

BA: There is not a shred of credible, independent, and peer-reviewed research supporting the Denier narrative. None.”

You’re funny, Barry. You, and your link, just showed credible evidence that the bogus Hockey Stick chart is a fraud.

The U.S. temperature profile looks nothing like the bogus Hockey Stick profile.

Regional charts from all around the globe resemble the U.S. temperature profile. They do not resemble the bogus Hockey Stick priofile.

So where did the Temperature Data Mannipulators come up with that Hockey Stick chart profile? Not from the written temperature record. They made it all up in their computers for political/personal purposes.

Last edited 6 months ago by Tom Abbott
Barry Anthony
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 8, 2022 6:40 am

Yes, that’s the U.S. regional chart, the most accurate written temperature record we have.

So, then, you admit your claim in the post above, “Here’s the real temperature profile of the Earth (Hansen 1999),” was a lie. Thanks for confirming you were lying.

I’m not embarrassed, Barry. That’s wishful thinking on your part.

We all know that’s another lie.

Please explain how the temperature profile of the U.S. looks so different from the computer-generated, instrument-era Hockey Stick profile on the right of the webpage.

Why don’t we look at data that includes the 20+ years since?

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

What were you saying about hockey sticks, again…? 😀

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Barry Anthony
March 9, 2022 1:57 am

Your “evidence” in the link above is just another bastardized temperature record, Barry. That’s all you have. Without the bogus temperature record, you would have no argument to make.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 9, 2022 6:40 am

Your “evidence” in the link above is just another bastardized temperature record, Barry

And yet you can’t provide a single credible scientific reference that shows anything besides the simple fact that NASA’s homogenization pass did anything but slightly COOL the temperature data, as per the references above.

Mr.
Reply to  Dean Boulding
March 4, 2022 6:16 pm

Yep.
For 40 years now the WMO / UNFCCC / IPCC has been spending $billions of taxpayers’ funds to determine what the world’s temperatures will do if the atmospheric component of CO2 doubles.

They haven’t refined their guess any more precisely from 1.5C to 4.5C after all those years of PhDs in white coats slaving over graphs all around the world.

Yet they declare they have achieved “settled science”.

EPIC FAIL!

lee
Reply to  Dean Boulding
March 4, 2022 6:43 pm

We have net zero zealots in Australia too. It is so hard to convince them of anything.

Both TANSat and OCO show Australia is a net carbon sink. Wat should happen for Australia to go from net sink to net zero?
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-021-1179-7.pdf

https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1928/

Scissor
Reply to  Dean Boulding
March 4, 2022 7:24 pm

Technically Dean, the world is the part of the planet with which we interact, such as natural features, countries, peoples, etc. Our planet is earth, and yes the planet is spherical.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Scissor
March 4, 2022 8:12 pm

It’s actually an oblate spheroid:

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/20/why-did-so-many-people-believe-the-world-is-flat-when-it-is-obviously-a-sphere/

There have always been more Luddites and bedwetters than flat-earthers, as I’m sure Dean knows from experience.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 4, 2022 8:41 pm

Wouldn’t “spherical” cover “spheroid”?

gdt
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 4, 2022 9:06 pm

For some reason spheroid is used interchangeable with ellipsoid. The earth is approximated by an ellipsoid (WGS84 being the current incarnation) but the eccentricity is small so it’s almost a sphere.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 5, 2022 11:19 am

Probably nitpicking but if it’s oblate maybe not.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 4, 2022 9:23 pm

It’s actually an oblate spheroid:

Actually, an oblate spheroid with some irregularities, hence more properly called a geoid.

TonyL
Reply to  Scissor
March 5, 2022 6:42 am

yes the planet is spherical.

*sigh*
I have to explain this again.
It is true that the oceans have CO2 dissolved in them. But more is needed. To be considered “carbonated”, the CO2 needs to be supersaturated.
The oceans are *not* carbonated. Technically, the oceans have gone flat.
By extension, the whole world is flat.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TonyL
March 5, 2022 9:29 am

Only 71% is flat.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 6, 2022 8:54 am

. . . but that’s not the complete picture because, by the stated reasoning, only 61% of the NH would be “flat” compared to 81% of the SH being “flat”.

Details, details, details.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Dean Boulding
March 5, 2022 12:00 am

Dean,

you forget that the flat earth belief was a consensus, what was it 97% then believed the earth to be flat?

Joao Martins
Reply to  Dean Boulding
March 5, 2022 1:52 am

I agree with you, “I know I can’t fight stupid“.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joao Martins
March 7, 2022 3:30 am

You can tell them about it, but you can’t understand it for them.

Teddy Lee
Reply to  Dean Boulding
March 5, 2022 6:34 am

Kindly show the “evidence “.

Waza
March 4, 2022 4:14 pm

A good goal for the scientific community would be providing cheap reliable energy for all peoples of the world.

A good subset of the above goal could be that low emissions energy be preferred.

BUT There is no science involved in NET ZERO.

Net Zero is not based on science, economics, health or social justice. It is pure wokeness.

If a company wants to claim net zero emissions it can pay offsets for a program to say install solar panels in a remote Africa village. No emissions are actually reduced and no science involved.

Peter W
March 4, 2022 5:35 pm

Reminds me of my trip to Glacier Bay in Alaska where we learned about the melting of the 65 mile long glacier which had occupied the entire bay when it was first charted prior to the year 1800. Updated charts as time passed showed that most of the glacier melted prior to the year 1900; before the invention of the airplane, the mass-production of the automobile, and with the population of the earth a fraction of what it is today. I am still waiting to hear how we are going to stop the warming which caused that glacier to melt.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Peter W
March 6, 2022 8:56 am

Wait no longer . . . it’s simple, just stop the Milankovitch cycles. 🙂

Barry Anthony
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 6, 2022 9:58 am

Wait no longer . . . it’s simple, just stop the Milankovitch cycles.

The current spike in global surface temperatures can’t in any way be attributed to Milankovitch cycles.

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

Gary Pearse
March 4, 2022 5:55 pm

With all due respect to research scientists who operate at the base of discovery of nature’s laws, this is almost entirely an engineer’s domain. Politicos form these grand organizations thinking scientists are what they need to reach such objectives.

The almost magical achievements of space and hi-tech electronic engineering sectors have transformed the world and engineers were in the limelight. There was no doubt whatsoever about whose field this was when the first manmade satellite orbited the earth. Enrollment in engineering ballooned around the world (I, myself switched from second year science into engineering in 1957).

Science had largely matured, and began to muscle in on engineering almost immediately. Rocket science (er…that would be engineering!) was the first incursion I recall. STEM more recently was coined, splitting off Technology from Engineering (!) when technology is exactly what the products of engineering are! ‘SEM’ is the whole show.

The boondoggle that is climate science/social ‘science’/political ‘science’ which chooses technologies that they would ‘like’ to have rather than be guided by what makes the most sense technologically to supply fuels and power.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 5, 2022 2:24 am

Thank you, Gary, for the precisions of wording (and of course, of understanding)!

I had a scientific education and started as a “scientist” (researcher, as we say in my country); after a few years I understood that the best of my contribution should be in the field of engineering: applying science to real life problems and, eventually, having some “scientific” results as a sort of by-products.

Due to a change of fashionable speech, also in Portugal “engineering” came to be replaced by “technology”, and I started to use this word. And faced ambiguity: when I consistently used the world “technology” with the meaning of old “engineering”, I noticed that people understood it as “something scientific”. I had to always introduce an explanation: “technology, as in applying science to solve real problems”. Managers want their enterprises to do “science” or “research”, it is fashionable, it sounds good to catch government subsidies, when what they actually need is good engineering.

I suppose that this is a social problem that will be solve only if there is a real change and we put things straight at the basic levels of teaching. This will take one generation at least.

Last edited 6 months ago by Joao Martins
Robert J Doyle
March 4, 2022 6:05 pm

Five Stars for great “Word Salad”. This is Gov. Speak at its best.

Read it slow and enjoy it. Too funny.

All of those poor, dead Pixels.

Oy!

Brad-DXT
March 4, 2022 8:04 pm

I see the appeal to authority includes management figures.
With such stunning backgrounds I’m sure we will all be at net zero any day now. 😉

philincalifornia
Reply to  Brad-DXT
March 4, 2022 8:15 pm

….. and the climate totally stabilized. No rain on weekends and no wind when I’m trying to play tennis. Brilliant stuff. Carry on.

Drake
Reply to  Brad-DXT
March 5, 2022 12:27 pm

Appeal to authority:

I once had an associate (liberal a$$hat AND a$$kisser) tell me I had to respect a supervisor because of his position.

I informed him that I had no respect for the individual, but I did understand the AUTHORITY he had over me in my job, and acted accordingly.

Clyde Spencer
March 4, 2022 9:05 pm

Rood, an environmental transportation analyst, will serve as the deputy director and chief operating officer of the Net Zero World Action Center, …

The graduate marketing manager showed her latest attempt to re-invent the wheel. It was an octagon with each of the sectors painted different colors, and the axle in the same plane.

Ford exclaimed, “That’s one of the simplest inventions in the universe and you can’t even get that right!”

The graduate marketing manager petulantly put her hands on her hips and said, “Well, if you’re so smart, what color would you paint it?”

[Paraphrased from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy]

Yoski
March 4, 2022 9:17 pm

Expertise? Based off of what? Surely these wizards of smart have examples or something to justify their expertise because wind mills, solar power and batteries are nowhere close to replacing the capacity of our carbon based energy grid.

Citizen Smith
March 5, 2022 6:40 am

Big government doesn’t get any better than this. No mention of cost, schedule or deliverables. All very highbrow and vague with fine sounding phrases like “advance America’s scientific leadership” and “develop clean energy projects”. Gag me with a hygrometer.

Steve Oregon
March 5, 2022 9:11 am

The pursuit wouldn’t be so extremely ludicrous if there were ANY signs of progress towards the big lift of Net Zero.
But in reality there is nothing more than the shroud of pretense, massive expense and literally nothing to show for it.
All of the policies have been no more productive than having leagues of people venture to beaches with teaspoons to bail the ocean as a means to offset sea rise.
And when the absurdity of their futility is raised they insist, “doing nothing is not an option”, while calling for more people with spoons.

There is no fixing the Climate Crusade.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steve Oregon
March 7, 2022 3:40 am

Yes, the Human-caused Climate Change Fraud has a lot of momentum behind it.

But now we are starting to bump up against reality that can’t be denied even by alarmists. Their plans don’t work and won’t work, and their plans are extremely detrimental to the economy and to society.

People are starting to notice.

Last edited 6 months ago by Tom Abbott
Gordon A. Dressler
March 6, 2022 8:29 am

“The national laboratories have the expertise, facilities and partnerships to accelerate the decarbonization of the global energy system and mitigate the impacts of climate change.”

Well, of course the do . . . in a pig’s eye!

And that marketing statement begets the standard question: What impacts?

Jeffrey Richard
March 6, 2022 12:21 pm

Yet no one mentions all the toxins that have to be dealt with in order to produce “green energy”. Or the fact that CO2 is essential for life on our planet.

%d bloggers like this: