None of us know all there is to know about the climate issue, we all still have questions of one type or another, mostly on the science side of the issue, but certainly some on the political side of it as well. Arguably, the more questions that are asked, the more everyone will find out about the issue, on whether the questions can be answered easily or after much deeper examination.
The New York Times wants to answer your questions. On March 21, they posted the following under the headline, “What Questions Do You Have About Climate Change?“
We know that climate change can be an overwhelming subject, and we want to break it down for you. …
Between now and Earth Day, April 22, we will answer as many questions as possible. Other questions may form the basis of future reporting, helping us decide what to dig into. …
The first two boxes at that NYT page first ask what you want to know, and then ask you to tell a little about yourself what why you are interested in this question, and then ask for your name, email address and where you live, with the assurance that your personal info without your permission.
It might be helpful if the NYT received more probing questions than those they are used to. The pertinent question here is whether they are prepared to answer YOUR questions.
From the NYT promo page for this creepy project –
We’ve seen this creepy behaviour before –
If you just assume that their “answer” is pretty much the polar opposite of the actual truth, you should be fine.
I see you’re referring in your comment to the “answers” you’d get from WUWT, Bruce, not from the NYT.
I see by your comment that you are quite confident in the answers which would be supplied by the NYT.
Ask them these…
What is the correct ECS?
How is it determined?
Why has there been no warming for a decade?
Why was the GAT in 2000 the same as 1958 while we had a linear increase in co2?
What caused the MWP and the RWP?
What caused the temp to drop during the little ice age?
Why did the temperature fall for 30 years starting around 1940 while we had a linear increase in co2?
My question is: Where’s the evidence showing CO2 is anything other than a benign gas essential for life, or that CO2 needs regulation?
Tom Abbott says:
“Where’s the evidence showing CO2 is anything other than a benign gas essential for life etc etc”
Translation: “I’m pretending (i.e. lying to myself and others) that human CO2 emissions don’t really act to significantly warm the planet and alter the earth’s climate system. I’m pretending that there’s ‘not’ evidence to demonstrate this, even though just five minutes of genuine research would easily reveal that such evidence has been around since the 19th century.”
MGC, Radiation physics is not a theory of climate.
You’re a science mocker along with everyone else who’s as mindless as you are. Feigning knowledge that you don’t have.
Sorry, pal, but saying “radiation physics is not a theory of climate” is as silly as, when trying to diagnose why your car won’t start, and it is suggested that the battery is dead, exclaiming “the state of a car battery is not a theory of automotive performance”.
Well duh. Of course it isn’t. Yet the state of the car battery in this circumstance is a vital piece of information.
Radiation physics is, likewise, vital information for any theory of climate. But your comment would appear to falsely imply that radiation physics isn’t really important to any such theory.
“I’m pretending that there’s ‘not’ evidence to demonstrate this, even though just five minutes of genuine research would easily reveal that such evidence has been around since the 19th century.”
Well, all you have to do to shut me up is to produce even one shred of evidence connecting CO2 to changes in the Earth’s climate.
That ought to be easy according to you.
I’ll watch this space for a little while to see if you reply.
MGC – Making Griff Coherent?
here is a compelling document that provides all the evidence one would need to be convinced CO2 has a warming effect on the climate. It is from a highly respected scientific body. Let me know where they got it wrong?
Simon, that’s an excellent link. Thanks for reminding me of it.
It is difficult to imagine that anyone with any genuine intellectual honesty would ever actually claim that there is “not a shred of evidence”.
One might start with Harries 2001 Increases in greenhouse forcing
inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
“Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”
and Chen 2007 Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006
“the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these (greenhouse gas) concentration changes”
Heck, even Svante Arrhenius … way back in 1896 … had this pegged correctly in his research study “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid (CO2) in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”
I don’t think you and Simon understand what evidence really is. It’s not speculation. They are two different things.
Here’s Tom still pretending that the evidence accepted by every major scientific organization in the entire world “isn’t” actually evidence.
This is, sadly, the typical mere vague handwaving and, frankly, intellectually dishonest “Nuh Uh because I say so” kind of response that one would expect from such a pretender.
Tom, is that seriously the best you can do. That article is full of undeniable evidence the increase in CO2 is having an affect on temperature and climate. It is well written and concise. Now if you think it is wrong say where so we can debate, but just saying it is speculative is light weight and frankly not entirely honest.
Well, you didn’t reply so I assme I am correct and you don’t have any evidence connecting CO2 concentrations and the Earth’s weather.
I must say I’m not surprised because there is no evidence that CO2 is driving the Earth’s weather.
You had an impossible task.
Say what? “didn’t respond”? What kind of anti-reality planet are you living on, Tommy Boy?
And oh, by the way, lets be accurate here and make sure we understand the difference between “climate” and “weather”. They are not the same thing.
Answer the above questions from Mike, MGC.
Just answering this would be enough for me: How did the MWP and LIA happen when ONLY CO2 can control the earth’s temperature?
I noticed you didn’t respond to those questions, just a bunch of hand waving. Your reason?
Drake sadly plays a typical intentionally disingenuous denier card when he ‘asks’ this:
“How did the MWP and LIA happen when ONLY CO2 can control the earth’s temperature?”
Who ever said that “ONLY CO2” controls the climate? No one ever said any such thing. However, what *has* been said is that CO2 is at present the primary influence in altering our current climate.
This kind of deliberately dishonest nonsense, that one encounters time and time and time again at places like WUWT, is a major reason why the so-called “skeptical” crowd cannot be taken seriously by the vast overwhelming majority of the professional scientific community.
“However, what *has* been said is that CO2 is at present the primary influence in altering our current climate.”
Please explain how that happens.
“Please explain how that happens.”
The references to research studies I posted already and the link that Simon added provide those explanations.
But you didn’t even bother to look at them, did you Tom? No, of course not. You just closed your eyes, stuck your fingers in your ears, and yelled “NA NA NA NA NA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”.
Typical anti-science attitude. And you folks still wonder why you have garnered essentially zero respect with the vast majority of scientific professionals? Unbelievable.
“This kind of deliberately dishonest nonsense, that one encounters time and time and time again at places like WUWT, is a major reason why the so-called “skeptical” crowd cannot be taken seriously by the vast overwhelming majority of the professional scientific community.”
You speak for the entire professional scientific community?
Ever hear of “projection”?
I’ve read what the scientific community has had to say about so called “skeptics” who play these kinds of intellectually dishonest games, like Drake’s woeful example. I’m simply reporting what those folks have said.
Sorry that you are unable to handle the reality that you and your kind are scoffed at by scientific professionals almost everywhere around the world.
Or most importantly: What is the ideal temperature of Earth?
“Why has there been no warming for a decade?”
Mike, who sold you this false claim? Some poser here on WUWT? It is simply not true. Look up the data yourself. There’s definitely been warming over the past decade.
I won’t bother to deal with the rest of your list. I chose just this one, as it is a typical example of the kinds of factually incorrect, and quite frankly, often intellectually dishonest “questions” that so-called “skeptics” routinely bring to the table.
Tendentious assertion, MGC. You’ve concluded that CO2 is warming the climate and worked backwards to impose a vacuous causality.
Climate models have no predictive value. Absent them, there’s no ground to claim that CO2 emissions have done anything to the climate — except green up Earth and increase agricultural yields.
You’ve been gulled. Save your wroth for that.
“You’ve been gulled. Save your wroth for that.”
The claim is made that “climate models have no predictive value”
… and yet climate trends have followed quite well the predictions made decades ago by even rather simple climate models.
But why are you even bothering to talk about climate models in this context? The question here was simply “has the earth warmed over the past decade?”
There was no discussion of “why” in this particular exchange. Just “did it warm or did it not?”
Observations show us that, yes, there was warming over the past decade.
You wouldn’t happen to work for the NYT, would you?
Oh PLLEEEAAAASSSSEEE CNN surely!
Pick me, Pick me. ECS is labelled an “emergent phenomena”. It emerges and varies by and from the underlying assumptions (Parameters). An emergent phenomena is defined as “a superficial outgrowth” as in rose thorns.
1) What primary science (citation to empirical research wanted) led you to conclude that anthropogenic climate change was even a thing?
2) Have you read recent papers on the effect of low-lying cloud, and cloud variability on climate change? If so,
2.1) what effect do clouds have? (numbers please), and
2.2) by how much did clouds vary in the last 4 decades since we’ve been able to measure their changes.
2.3) What is meant by cloud albedo?
2.4) How does this cloud albedo affect surface temperature?
NYT defining the truth one article at a time
Why do we have “projections” of climate, but no predictions?
Because no one can predict the future successfully beyond random chance. However, projections are common among neurotics and is classified as a mental illness.
And prognosticators and soothsayers and astrologers. Did I miss any?
Necromancers, phrenologists, Spherologists, Haruspicists – you need more.
They’re all with the IPCC….
The drunk down the local bar
“Mark my words…”
Yeah, that guy for sure.
Actually, projection in a more general sense is a widespread human habit that makes the interior visible. Some projection is unhealthy, other types not. The worst form consists of forcibly acting out neuroses, complexes, and mental problems on others. Classical forms include seeing others through the lens of one’s own Shadow. Dreams are healthy projection. All art is a form of projection Literature, too. They say all first novels are autobiographical. That is incomplete. ALL novels are autobiographical. We just get better at disguising ourselves from ourselves and others.
Really. Now what on this earth would lead me to believe that I needed journalists at the New York Times to give me clarification about earth science?–including climate.
The offer should be reversed; the New York Times should have been given the offer of asking contributors and commenters here what they’d like to know about climate change. Journalist are the ones who need to learn something.
Perfectly Orwellian Idiocracy. Have the knowledgable ask the ignorant for clarification.
Nice idea and I’m wondering if ‘expert’ climate people who read this site would be prepared to compile lists of useful questions that ‘lay’ people who also read this site could copy and send as questions to the NYT.
As I’m sure many experts have more questions than the NYT would be prepared to answer from any one person.
A kind of WUWT community approach.
How is it possible for open ocean water to exceed 30C over a yearly average?
What objective, scientific evidence is there that changing the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has any effect on the Earth’s temperature, either locally, regionally or globally?
Full attribution of the sources required.
The Heart of the matter.
The evidence goes the other way. According to Miskolczi 2010, the enhanced greenhouse effect violates Kirchhoff’s Law.
I guess someone should them why they support a science which has already been falsified.
What is the ideal temperature of the Earth?
I’ve never been able to get a straight answer to that one.
I image their answer would be, “Whatever it isn’t right now.”
How can we “project” the climate for 100 years, but not the weather for 100 hours?
“How can we “project” the climate for 100 years, but not the weather for 100 hours?”
Oh dear…..Because they are different things….
Haha you think they are the same and you call me an idiot. What a nob.
Maga moron. He ain’t coming back any time soon.
Ouch, this hurt deeply, I’m cut to the bone.
If you voted for Joe Biden, Simon, you voted for a bribe-taker. If you voted for a bribe-taker you have no moral standing to criticize Trump.
If you voted for Joe Biden, you likely voted for, or sympathize with, Hillary Clinton. An unindicted felon.
Consciously voting for both a bribe-taker and an unindicted felon signifies a moral reprobate unfit for the company of ordinary people.
“If you voted for Joe Biden, Simon, you voted for a bribe-taker.”
Unless you can provide even minimal, credible documentation, just more Propagation of Nonsense…
No you didn’t understand what he was talking about he wasn’t saying they are the same it was about the inability to forecast over different time frames.
Hey the Russia colluuuusion guy returns.
Careful lest he run you down with his battery car.
Thing is with Simon, his only battery operated car is a toy his mummy gave him. And she wont buy him any new batteries, so he has to push it by hand.
An even though its battery operated, he still makes the brrroom, brrroom noises.
Why would I make noises in a car that is silent and all the better for it? I mean … hello….
It’s cold out, so his battery car doesn’t have enough power to get uphill.
No need to go anywhere. It’s comes to me.
Tell me again CM … how much is it costing you to fill your Neanderthal car?
F J B—you’re an idiot still.
Hey look it is the one trick pony.
You still believe in Russia colluuuusion so you really are not bright.
How can you be so fracking clueless?
Another who thinks weather is climate. Oh dear. I guess you can’t cure stupid.
Says the bloke who can’t spell his own name 🙂
“Another who thinks weather is climate.”
Just like Griff.
If he does he is wrong. I don’t recall him making that simple error though. I mean let’s be honest Tom, it really is climate 101 that weather and climate are vastly different things, yet people here (in an attempt to sound clever)still confuse them.
You really are dumb…wow.
Some people get confused and some people are not confused.
Vastly different things? Climate is nothing but cumulative weather. Try describing what climate is without using the word weather.
Not correct Simon. Because weather models are updated with new data every four hours, to prevent them going off the rails.
While climate models cannot be updated at all. They go off the rails immediately.
His statement is correct!
(I can say that summer will be warmer than winter while not know when it will rain next month and there was an average global warming trend over the last 150 years, so an easy linear projection would be a straight line after discussing the trouble with this data set like limited coverage before satellites)
If you can predict the weather for 10hours might depend where exactly you are.. the weather in Antarctica is “frggin´ cold” year around 🙂
Weather and climate are different.
That’s why warmistas who claim that whatever short term weather event has occurred in the last year as PROOF of CAGW are so moronic.
By equating the two you are in agreement of the bullshite of warmistas.
OK, I submitted a question. Hope they contact me, will let you know. Not likely they contact me? That’s why I used some colorful words.
“We know that our emotional climate change reporting can be overwhelming, and we want to break you down…”
Asking for your address and personal info guarantees they won’t get any questions they don’t like.
Will reducing our carbon footprint really make the climate perfect, forever?
What is the perfect climate and who determines what it is?
I’m sure the NYT can answer that one.
Some time ago I asked a similar Q&A session ‘What is the correct level of CO2?’
I was told that it was around 280ppm – the so-called pre-industrial levels
I then asked how we would cope with losing about 50% of our crop yields if we ever managed to drop it to that level. I didn’t get an answer…
How about, “When will you stop lying about climate”?
Another question they will not respond to…
What a truly ironic question, Bruce, seeing that it is posted on the WUWT website, where “lying about climate” is a near constant occurrence.
You are a moronic True Believer, obviously, so have no clue what you are talking about.
Are you the same MGC that used to post lies on Yahoo? You know, before Yahoo disabled comments because they were getting too many comments that countered their narrative a bit too effectively?
The same idiot who in one post claimed that global warming would make fresh water a scarce resource and in the very next claimed the global warming would inundate the planet with rain? That MGC?
So s/he has a history.
Perhaps they can explain how this data could exist under the climate crisis scenarios.
New land-use-change emissions indicate a declining CO2 airborne fraction | Nature
Question: how is it that the deadlines for climate action continue to be pushed to the future? Every ten years we have only ten years left to mitigate the problem decisively. Is the problem even real?
Just like fusion power… it’s only twenty years away, just like it’s been for fifty years…
Hey, and where is my flying car…
It would seem that the “settled science” has determined that “10 years” is a nice round number.
How long will agenda/advocacy science persist as the basis for energy and environmental policy?
How much money does the NYT make from continuous climate fear promotion?
Do NYT readers ever get to see taxpayer supported real data tracking of the oceans and atmosphere, like ARGO and satellites?
NOAA SST-NorthAtlantic GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×481) (climate4you.com)
PDO MonthlyIndexSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×475) (climate4you.com)
Do NYT readers know what UHI is and how it changed by year and decade?
Do NYT readers ever question advocacy authority?
How soon will we have European energy prices, shortages, and land wars?
Ya shoulda asked that question back on January 19, 2021. As of now, we know the answer.
Europe has been doing this to themselves long before 2021.
Two good question for a journalist who majored in liberal arts in college.
1) What is the value of the ECS, the Equilibrium Climate sensitivity? ECS is the one critical parameter which determines the Earths temperature response to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
ECS was originally given in the Charney Report in 1979. The estimate was 3.0 degrees +/- 1.5 degrees, giving a range of 1.5 – 4.5 deg.
With billions spent on Climate Change research in the 40 years since, We must have a better value for ECS by now. What is it?
2) What is the % of cloud cover over the Earth at any given time? How much would this % have to increase such that incoming sunlight reflected away by the clouds totally offsets a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Inquiring minds want to know.
“2) What is the % of cloud cover over the Earth at any given time? How much would this % have to increase such that incoming sunlight reflected away by the clouds totally offsets a doubling of atmospheric CO2.”
It is claimed that a two percent increase in cloud cover would offset all human-derived CO2 temperature increases.
I don’t have my reference handy at the moment.
Scafetta has an answer to the first question..
Question for NYT:
Why is mortality from cold about 10 times as high as that for heat?
From the abstract:
In 2019, the average cold-attributable mortality exceeded heat-attributable mortality in all countries for which data were available. Cold effects were most pronounced in China with PAFs of 4·3% (3·9–4·7) and attributable rates of 32·0 deaths(27·2–36·8) per 100 000 and in New Zealand with 3·4% (2·9–3·9) and 26·4 deaths (22·1–30·2). Heat effects were most pronounced in China with PAFs of 0·4% (0·3–0·6) and attributable rates of 3·25 deaths (2·39–4·24)per 100 000 and in Brazil with 0·4% (0·3–0·5) and 2·71 deaths (2·15–3·37).
Is the New York Times capable of reporting on Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph? Without special pleading?
My question would be, simply.
‘What would convince you we do not have a climate crisis’
What convinces the NYT reporters we have a climate crisis?
All I see is weather in its various forms, and nothing unprecedented, and I’m probably older than most of those NYT reporters. They should listen to the voice of experience.
There is nothing unpecedented going on with the Earth’s climate. Even a NYT reporter ought to be able to figure that out. Assuming they have a desire to know the truth. I have my doubts they do.
Can I make a request to the world as a whole? Can we all agree to discontinue use of certain words/phrases as they no longer bear any meaning. My submission to initiate the meaningless word/phrase list:
I also consider climate expert as potential candidate. I welcome input to the list.
“Unprecedented” is not meaningless.
Alarmists use “unprecedented” all the time as the main part of their argument. How would you argue against that without using the word?
Question: Dear NYT, why do you tell so many lies about climate?
Answer: There’s nothing special about climate, moron!
About climate? About EVERYTHING!!!!
This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Here are some amusing questions for NYT to ponder:
Now this is a really good set of questions.
I liked number 8 the best.
I imagine Rud’s questions went right over the heads of the New York Times reporters.
Obviously all very good questions, Rud.
I suspect the NYT would use the opportunity they provide to buzz about between the questions to simply confuse and obscure their ignorance.
If I was allowed an auxiliary question I would ask, Why are the positive elements of our current climate conditions not mentioned and appreciated by the MSM?
Rud, the answer to number 7 is, the climate research (propaganda) community does not debate because they tried it once and lost to a skeptics panel consisting of Richard Lindzen, Phillip Stott, and Michael Crichton (yes, that Michael Crichton). And the alarmist side included Gavin Schmidt of GISS.
See the IQ2US YouTube video of the debate titled Global Warming is Not A Crisis:
The wisdom and voice of reason of Michael Crichton is sadly missed. His medical expertise could have been even more important during this pandemic.
And Gavin accused his opponents of lying. Despicable.
May I throw in a basic question for NYT which is at the heart of the climate debate?
Q: Is CO2 a pollutant and toxic?
Answer by Dr. Alan Finkel, now retired Chief Scientist of Australia and a staunch supporter of the UN IPCC published in “The Quarterly”,no.82,April 2021-
“A brief digression on carbon dioxide; it is not a pollutant.
Calling it a pollutant runs the risk of trivialising the toxic effects of true pollutants.Carbon dioxide is not toxic.
It is a product of human metabolism and we exhale it at more than 100 times higher concentration than is found in the atmosphere.
In the reverse cycle, plants absorb carbon dioxide to use as the food stock of photosynthesis.
Carbon dioxide is a fundamental part of our lifecycle but it also happens to be a greenhouse gas.”
Dr.Finkel then discusses the greenhouse effect.
So,in his terms it is all down to what is the warming effect of the greenhouse gases.
I think you appreciate the significance of Dr.Finkel’s statement which is in direct contradiction to the views of the EPA underlying its endangerment finding of December,2009.
( Does the UN IPCC state expressly that CO2 is a pollutant?)
Incidentally, the National Pollutant Inventory ( NPI) of Australia lists 93 pollutants and C and CO2 are not among them.
The root harm in Mass v EPA was Congress definition of a pollutant as ‘that which pollutes’. All SCOTUS said in their infamous ruling was that the EPA admin had the digression to decide what pollutes.
Bad law with bad outcomes.
Permanent solution is to relegislate CCA pollutant definition after we retake Congress in 2022.
That is also why the West Virginia v. EPA judgement currently reserved in the SCOTUS is so important.
It should be delivered before end July when Justice Breyer retires.
A permanent solution is to forever shutter the EPA and restore the power to the states.
Demolish the buildings. Plow the ground and sow it with salt, sell off the lab equipment, and scatter the erstwhile EPA upper management to operate the cash registers at remote gas stations in the Mohave.
I like the part about plowing the EPA ground and ‘sowing with salt’.
Rud has unfortunately offered us a short list of what are actually >> intentionally disingenuous << “questions” that are often bandied about by so-called “skeptics”. For example:
#3 – why do “skeptics” always leave out important details about this particular scenario? Like, Hansen was just making an off the cuff guess, nothing more, and moreover, that guess was predicated on the assumption that CO2 levels would have doubled in the timeframe discussed, which they did not (and still have not).
#5 – Just flat out false. The latest wind and solar projects are now delivering the lowest cost electricity of *any* generation technology, even with zero subsidies.
#6 – A “question” that simply tries to pretend away the overwhelming worldwide scientific conclusion that, no, current climate change is neither “slow” nor just “natural”.
#7 – scientists debate scientific issues via peer reviewed science, not via unscientific public forums. In the only genuine forum for *real* scientific debate, so-called “skeptics” have been totally whitewashed, because they have brought pretty much zero valid evidence to bear on anything they claim.
Says you. You unfortunately apparently have access to the Wayback machine. Let’s take your first two.
#3 Hanson said it. salon wrote it. When the reporter was called on it after twenty years, he did not say Hanson SWAGed. He said he misreported and Hanson said 40 years. That is NOT your version. Problem with continued lying is memory eventually trips you up. Look it up.
#5 IF your assertion is true, how come nobody invests in renewables even now without subsidies? Something you cannot factually deny.
And what is your economic backup solution to intermittency, and what is your grid solution to lack of inertia? Perhaps you rely on biased ‘official’ sources claiming otherwise. Then do due diligence like I have.
Several years ago (in 2016) I wrote ‘True Cost of Wind for Judith’s Climate Etc. At the time, EIA 2015 claimed wind was at LCOE cost parity with CCGT. EIA deliberately misrepresented in several easily verifiable ways. When corrected to the then reality, CCGT was $58/MWh and onshore wind was $146/MWh.
Suggestion. You want to go toe to toe with me, up your game. Pathetic.
“how come nobody invests in renewables even now without subsidies?”
Yet another example of a “question” that leads off with trying to get the reader to accept false information. This claim is simply not true. There are lots of investments in renewables now that rely on zero subsidies. You’re way behind the times, my friend.
#5 – Just flat out false. The latest wind and solar projects are now delivering the lowest cost electricity of *any* generation technology, even with zero subsidies.
This might actually be a true statement and yet it might make no sense to mass-produce electricity that way.
An honest debate about electricity production cost should also include the need to storage solar up to 6months (we also need electricity in April after the winter), grid stability and environmental issues and slave labor conditions during production and last not least the finite availability.
A Epstein made the point of proving the idea of sustainable electricity or even all energy on a smaller scale BEFORE trying to change the world with an unproven, but controversial idea.
Actully, the 2nd graph in the latest article on WUWT shows an example for it:
A 3 week period in winter for NYC, where the demand is much higher than the electricity production from wind and solar.
Of course the cost to cover that period with electricity needs to be discussed.
“A 3 week period in winter for NYC, where the demand is much higher than the electricity production from wind and solar.”
Why do you want to pretend that the amount of wind and solar generation that was available in the 2007-2012 timeframe (which is what that 2nd graph depicts) will be what we will use to support the power grid in the future? Sorry, but this makes less than zero sense.
>> Why do you want to pretend that the amount of wind and solar
Where do I say such a thing?
A classic C. Sagan straw man! Trying to put words in my mouth will not help you with your cost omission a wind and solar electricity generation is facing.
In general personal attacks are considered bad manners and often are just fog candle in lieu of arguments.
Btw in this example, there was no wind in that period of time no amount of wind parks will be able to generate electricity from that and increasing the wind or solar park density increases the cost of electricity generation.
It certainly seemed that that was in essence what you were doing. To paraphrase your statement:
“Oh look, there was a period of time years ago when there wasn’t enough wind and solar to run the grid. ‘Therefore’ we will never be able to run the grid in the future.”
BTW, I didn’t comment on other little gems in your original post, but will do so now:
1- the supposed need to have “six months of storage” on the grid for when wind and solar output is low is a wild exaggeration. Nowhere near that amount will be needed.
2- “environmental issues” ? Whatever environmental issues might exist for wind and solar electricity production are minuscule in comparison to environmental issues due to fossil fuels.
3- And what did you mean by “finite availability” ?? There are magnitudes more wind and solar resource available than what we are using.
Untrue – whenever the price goes negative in Australia, the wind and solar voluntarily curtail. The coal plants set their minimum price at the floor of minus AUD1000/MWh in the knowledge they can recover the loss when electricity is actually needed after all the rooftop solar panels shut down in the evening. So coal plants willingly operate at negative prices.
The wind and solar drop out as soon as the price goes more negative than their subsidy – the going price of LGCs.
South Australia market now negative AUD12 and wind has curtailed as rooftops kick in – per attached.
Anyone who thinks wind and solar is lower cost than dispatchable generation does not have a clue about markets. Value depends on scarcity. Water is essential to life but can kill you when there is too much. This year the price for water in Australia is down to cents per megalitre. Likewise with electricity, there is no point pumping electricity into a system that is oversupplied and suppliers are penalised if they do. The excessive input will cause over voltage and the whole system will collapse. South Australia is living with the consequence of a generating system that is not founded on value. It relies on a high power interconnector with Victoria to maintain any semblance of a normal grid. It is a parasite putting the whole east coast network at risk while adding costs for everyone. All eastern states are paying for the “renewable” fantasy.
The only situation where wind or solar offers a benefit is if the fuel price is so high that it is an economic fuel replacement. There are parts of central Australia that use diesel fuel for dispatchable generation where solar is an economic alternative and would look really good at current diesel prices in remote parts of Australia.
Why do you so sadly demonstrate your willful ignorance? Spend just five minutes investigating the web search term “lowest cost electricity generation technology”.
MGC like the NYT defining a special version of the truth
Why do you so sadly demonstrate your willful ignorance? Spend just five minutes investigating the web search term “lowest cost electricity generation technology”.
Cut and paste. That’s funny. 🙂
Yep. Lame to the max.
Diffuse intermittent energy will never compete economically with concentrated continuous energy. Any analysis that says differently is a polemic.
“Diffuse intermittent energy will never compete economically with concentrated continuous energy.”
This sounds an awful lot like someone exclaiming, say, back in the late 1960s, “diffuse personal computing resources will never compete economically with single centralized computing resources.”
OMG LOL !!
You left out the search terms “subsidies” and “tax breaks”.
Wanna lose them all? Line forms behind me. But I don’t think you’ve really thought it through to it’s economic conclusion.
FYI, the article neglects the century old 11-12 figures (and accelerating) of underfunding of asset retirement obligations, just in the CONUS. Add another figure to get the world wide shirk.
Quote:“None of us know all there is to know about the climate issue
Falls at the very first hurdle.
Yes we do know all about “the climate issue”
Its a scam. period
The NYT could care less about helping anyone, unless you are a democrat.
The New York Times just wants to get better at indoctrinating people.
Oh yes. As if anything the NYT prints today is more than agenda-driven propaganda..
Today? Try the last whole century at least!
One may be assured that these liars will lie with every sentence.
The whole basis of this “public service” is set themselves up as trustworthy
climate authorities even though they’ll lie continuously to promote the scam.
Given that, it’s pointless to even submit a question as they’ll be able to say
they answered “x+1” questions. What a bunch of sick #$%$!%##s!
Quite an ironic comment, there, OMW, seeing as it is posted on the WUWT website, which is itself beyond guilty of every one of those NYT accusations you just made.
WUWT pretends that what they are doing is a “public service” here, when in reality it is a tragically horrendous public disservice. They pretend that the content here is written by, to use your words, “trustworthy climate authorities”, yet it is routinely the exact opposite. WUWT promotes the scam of anti-science climate change denial.
Three assertions, none of them substantiated. Well done.
Alarmists are all about unsubstantiated assertions. They can’t substantiate any of their climate change assertions because they don’t have any evidence. So they just assert and assert and assert as if their assertions will become reality with repetition.
Tom Abbott claims:
“They can’t substantiate any of their climate change assertions because they don’t have any evidence.”
Yeah, right Tom. According to you, EVERY major relevant scientific organization in the ENTIRE WORLD has accepted a scientific conclusion on the basis of “no evidence”.
How delusional can you possibly be?
And yet, it’s true.
You’ve fallen for it, MGC. Why not them?
Here’s a conundrum for you. The figure shows that the entire global air temperature record can be fit with a 60-year cycle close to the PDO/AMO period plus the rising phase of a known 234-year oscillation.
No CO2 emissions required. Rug, launch feet.
Really? A “known 234 year oscillation” ?? Oh please.
That supposed “234 year oscillation” has no physical basis whatever. It is merely the product of a pseudo-scientific mathematical curve fit.
What a joke of an excuse!
“According to you, EVERY major relevant scientific organization in the ENTIRE WORLD has accepted a scientific conclusion on the basis of “no evidence”.”
That’s exactly right. All those organizations have gone political and delusional. There is no evidence that human-derived CO2 is changing the Earth’s climate.
You, and/or those organizations, are invited to present some evidence to the contrary.
It doesn’t matter how many people are wrong, what matters are the facts and the facts say they are wrong.
Mass Delusion and political and social pressure can affect a lot of people in detrimental ways. It doesn’t change the fact that none of them, including you, can prove that human-derived CO2 is doing anything to change the Earth’s climate.
You are invited to prove me wrong.
Of course, you won’t because there’s no evidence for you to present. I say that with confidence after searching for such evidence for many years and finding none.
“none of them, including you, can prove that human-derived CO2 is doing anything to change the Earth’s climate.”
Just to be clear, there is never actually any “proof” of anything in science. Just supporting evidence.
On that note, there’s plenty of evidence supporting the conclusion that human greenhouse gas emissions are significantly influencing our planet’s climate. A few examples were suggested in another thread.
Pretending otherwise, that no such evidence exists, remains thoroughly ridiculous and, quite frankly, to my mind, just plain intellectually dishonest.
I don’t see any evidence being presented. No detail at all. Just assertions.
That’s all we ever get from alarmists. And when called out on it, they squirm like you are doing.
Again, Tom, in another thread I provided you with some examples of published research containing plenty of evidence. And there are many many more like those examples.
But when confronted with such research evidence, you didn’t even bother to look at it. Instead, you just ignorantly responded “Nuh Uh because I say so”.
So childishly infantile.
No. There never is proof.
But there must be a falsifiable hypothesis. Can you give us ANY of these in the last 50 years?
Hello James D
There were many predictions made, decades ago, about certain specifics expected of the “signature” of warming due to CO2; specifics that would differentiate warming via CO2 from other possible causes.
If those specifics were *not* observed as the planet warmed, then yes, the CO2 warming hypothesis would be falsified.
Here are just a few examples of those specifics, and what the outcomes of observations of those specifics have been over the decades:
1- the spectrum of the earth’s infrared emissions into space should change, and specifically at CO2 absorption wavelengths. This change has been observed. (Harries 2001, Chen 2007)
2- the spectrum of infrared radiation coming from the sky, as measured at the earth’s surface, should change, specifically at CO2 absorption wavelengths. This change has been observed (Feldman 2015).
3- The lower atmosphere should warm but the stratosphere should cool (because some energy emitted from the lower atmosphere, that would normally warm the stratosphere, has been blocked by CO2). This has been observed. (Santer, 2013)
4- nighttime temperatures should increase more than daytime temperatures (because again, the warming mechanism is the trapping of heat that would otherwise escape into space). This has been observed.(Braganza et al, 2004)
5- the “effective radiating altitude”, meaning the location in the atmosphere where infrared becomes free to travel into space, should move to a higher altitude. This has been observed. (Santer 2003)
So yes, the hypothesis is clearly falsifiable, as it made a series of several predictions that should occur *only* if CO2 were the warming mechanism. Those predictions, made decades ago, have all been observed.
Now you are showing your true greentard beliefs ….. good to see the real you.
Well, I’d like to know how, after we’ve stopped drilling for oil, will pave the roads. Roads will still deteriorate, get potholes, and such, and so there’s a continuing need for asphalt.
If my memory is correct, I once read that an average 42 gallon barrel of oil yields about 8 gallons of asphalt, 12 gallons of diesel/kerosene, 19 gallons of gasoline, and a few gallons of light distillates used to make everything from dry cleaning fluid to paint thinner.
If drilling for oil continues so ensure a supply of asphalt and paint thinner, what will happen to all the diesel fuel and gasoline? You can’t just dump it on the ground or in the ocean. Maybe it would be burned as a waste product.
No, I am not being facetious, other than maybe the crack about burning the unused gasoline. If we don’t drill for oil there’s gonna be a problem as pretty much everything we use today from fabrics to the resins used in plastics depend on oil. The New York Times should answer these questions.
There is 100’s of millions of barrels of low quality bitumen (oil sands in Alberta), that doesn’t have much use for other than the bottom production of asphalt. We will never run out of low quality bitumen, and the recoverable reserves of higher quality oil sands have just tripled with the general price increase of WTI and heavy Western Canadian Select. (WCS) at $95 USD And it is just sitting there ready to be dug up.
It’s like that annoying religion peddler that knocks on your door wanting to “answer your questions about God.”
What a bunch of scum bags at the NYT….in my opinion, of course.
I asked ’em 3 political questions:
1) considering that ‘science consensus’ (i.e. argumentum ad populum / “a show of hands“) has never validated any science-based conclusion in the history of the Scientific Method, what other possible reason does the NYT have for dismissing skeptic climate scientists out-of-hand?
2) if the NYT says ‘Big Coal & Oil’ pays those skeptics to lie, does the NYT then have evidence which can stand up in a courtroom evidentiary hearing proving a pay-for-performance arrangement exists between those skeptics and fossil fuel company executives?
3) if not, will the NYT investigate the core clique of enviro-activist accusers who’ve promulgated that accusation over the last 30+ years?
After posting your questions, did you, too, get directed to their page of ‘why it’s all true’ homilies, Russell?
Nope, nothing like that. Was only a few hours old yesterday when I first saw it and responded to it, NYT might have subsequently added that as an afterthought.
When will the Western woke ‘democratic’ world wake up to the facts that fighting against climate change with their current methods is more damaging than adapting to the inevitable particularly when it has an unfair distribution of whom should pay .
This would be my question: “Given that water vapor is far and away the most important greenhouse gas, why is so much importance given to minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane?”
Q: The NYTimes has been “reporting” on climate change for more than a Century. Can you list those that have been proven wrong?
Shorter list: Can they list the those where they have been proven right?
Simple question for the NYT: Why aren’t you sceptical?
As journalists are supposed to be.
If CO2 in air traps heat causing an increase in temperature shouldn’t there be two columns for energy input required in specific heat tables, one for with infrared and one without?
All answers will be provided by Nick Stokes and Griff, no matter the subject is. 🙂
Yes first Nick will define the problem and answer and then Griff will find suitable PR releases.
Nick wil redefine…remember he obfuscates.
Would this be the New York Times which has spent the last two years denying the existence of the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell”, only to perform a recent about face and admit that it is, in fact very real? That New York Times?
Everything the NY Slimes prints is self-serving propaganda to advance their
cause. They finally admitted the laptop was real as they felt they needed to
act as a shock absorber to plant lies to shape the narrative as the real story
was going to break soon, possibly with Hunter being indicted or someone
with smoking gun evidence they were going to reveal. Maybe Brandon’s
rambling about “someone we know being blackmailed” may have been a
trigger, too. It also gave a “heads up” to fellow MSM outlets & liberal pols to
prepare “answers” to questions they may get asked.
By coincidence, the Kremlin Times wants to answer your questions about Ukraine. Any question, big or small. They are there to help. You just need to tell them who you are, and where you live. Just for their records, of course.
I would give you more than one up vote if I could, for that one. Very funny.
Kremlin Times, that is just the Moscow bureau of the NY Times, right?
Climate change is a natural, ongoing process that started when the earth formed. The climate is in a continual state of change. Why should we fear it?
For the New York Times,
“In light of the recent lawsuit filed against you by Sarah Palin, and considering the Amicus Brief filed in August 2014 by TWENTY SEVEN news organizations against Michael Mann and in favor of Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, which side of the long-running libel suit about Mann’s so-called “fraudulent hockey-stick graph” are you supporting? Are public figures entitled to sue and win financial damages from authors and publishers, if and only if the matter of public interest is ‘climate?’ “
So the New York Times wants to know what questions I have about Climate Change. Really? SURE:
How much is methane going to run up global temperatures by 2100?
Telling us that it’s 86 time more powerful than CO2 isn’t productive.
I sent the form, cleaned up the grammar and added some info they wanted. So I’ll watch my inbox & Junk mail to see if they answer. They wanted to know about me. So I said, “I’m skeptical about every thing the press tells us, To quote Mark Twain, I’m uninformed, not misinformed.”
Perhaps they will have some doozie answers ready for April Fool’s Day.
How much did NYC get from the Superstorm Sandy political push on all media fronts?
Also, why can’t NYC build a one-foot curb to step over at the top of subway entrances, in place of claiming Armageddon with each storm to get more federal money for your subway expansions?
Are you kidding? I mean no disrespect but…
that’s an ambulance chaser’s dream.
To paraphrase (IIRC) Solzenytzin (sp?):
We know they lie.
They know we know they lie.
We know they know we know they lie.
And yet they continue to lie.
That sums up NYT pretty well.
Explains their slogan, “All the lies we wish to print.”
Don’t fall for it. It’s just a ruse by the NYT to justify pumping out a steady string of climate hysteria propaganda pieces. Sounds like they can also use it to expand the list of “climate deniers” who will be dealt with when the time comes.
As I am surrounded by homes with swimming pools, why is it nobody has used them since 2016 because the water doesn’t warm enough to please them?
I asked two questions (see below each had a small field “Why does this interest me”)
Let´s see if I hear back from them.. little hope I have..
Does R. McKitrick´s article “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting: a comment” really mean that current model methodology s cannot predict the real world?
He elaborates the problem in laymen terms here https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/
And I am interested in this question because without a scientific answer to his critique, basically any article using climate models to make any statement about the real world seems to be flawed. It has been almost a year without any scientific reaction which worries me.
Can the proxy selection for reconstruction of past climate lead to unkown uncertanties which is not considered at all in the reconstruction?
There are infamous examples like M. E. Mann´s Bristlecone Pines supposedly not depending on any factors beside temperature or the Cape Ghir series (the raw data https://climateaudit.org/2014/11/25/new-data-and-upside-down-moberg/ implies that we had 10x more warming in the last 200 year in that region than at any other time in the last 2000 years which seems to contradict history), which was used as pure temperature proxy without discussion to produce IPCC6 SPM figure 1, see https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
It seems to me that climate scientists do not work very scientific here. Also the more than 10 year old critique of McShane and Wyner (DOI 10.1214/10-AOAS398REJ) seems very much valid and more importantly unaddressed. It seems just plain wrong to continue publishing such studies without fixing the problem first.
My question to the NYT would be: In 1988 the Canberra Times reported that all 1196 islands of the Maldives will be underwater within the next 30 years so by now they should be gone. Now ABC News International is reporting that it will be by 2050 80% of the Maldives will be uninhabitable. Can the NYT give a definitive date when the Maldives will disappear? Asking for a friend.
After 30 years of involvement with climate research, I distilled the main questions down to these:
For a 1⁰C change in global temperature –
Now, you know and I know that any media group will not answer questions that are inconvenient for them To have the NYT make useful answers, you will need to pressure them. How about a loosely coordinated approach, where readers of WUWT here send in these questions and get their friends to send them in as well?
Then we can report to the NYT how many potential subscribers they ignored, if they do indeed ignore, and congratulate if the attempt to answer decently. Geoff S
Well I got to ask my hypothetical question, “how many windmills does it take to construct another windmill?” Am I expecting an answer, no.
Once upon a time Stalin would take a train and visit towns along the way. He would ask for peoples opinions. The train that followed Stalin’s train would pick up the people that did not give opinions he agreed with. They were sent to be re-educated or worse.
How much do you trust NYT with your personal data?
I have a question somebody may feed to the New York Times. Suppose the US achieves
Net Zero in 2050. How much would that lover the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and would it have any effect on the climate?
My submitted question: “How do you account for the certainty of your conviction that CO2-emissions-caused climate change is a reality when it’s been known for 2-1/2 years that climate models have no predictive value …
… which in turn means that all the projections of a torrid future are physically meaningless?”
“No, you can’t point to this paper, Nick Stokes has decreed it to be wrong…”
I have questions, NYT.
Why is the world (except Russia, China and India) spending so much money using climate models which, to date, have failed to predict?
Are Wind & Solar the biggest waste of money ever?
Why isn’t everyone on board with nuclear power generation which will provide the energy for civilization whether the climate warms, cools or stays the same?
I can’t think of one thing I would want answered by the New York Times. They are a joke.
What temperature range is ideal for the planet?
An even more pertinent question to NYT. Are you even prepared to read my question(s)? before you apply your usual idiot habits of projection to it to conclude it doesn’t need answering because NTY staffers applied their considerable woke telepathic skills to conclude the questioner is: Brexiteer, antivax, pro-Putin, Fascist, Trumpist, Racist, transphobic, or whatever they feel like projecting next.
My Question would be why was the IPCC set up with the sole purpose of finding Man Made Global Warming and nothing else not allowed to look at natural warming cooling cycles not allowed to look at natural sources of CO2?
That is indeed true. From the archived pages of the IPCC itself,
Change the words there of “climate related data” and “climate change” to “ghost population data” and “ghost proliferation,” and it immediately becomes obvious to how ludicrous the IPCC’s mission statement was back then. Show the altered version of that statement to any ordinary person on the street and one of the first things they’ll say is “don’t tell me that we need to adapt to or mitigate the rising numbers of human-induced ghosts until you prove ghosts exist in the first place!!”
This was because it is a political organisation not a scientific one.
A true science body should look at all scenarios.
I’d ask, “Why do our children still know what snow is?”
And foxes want to answer your questions about henhouses.
what’s the Earth’s ideal temperature and how do you know? show your work
if ECS is less than two, does the total effort wasted on cooling, coerced and voluntary, amount to tens of trillions of dollars or only trillions?
which shell is the ball under?
If I want answers to my “climate change questions”, the last place I would go to get answers is the New York Times.
Why is human climate change a potential failed theory?
Cooling between 1940’s and 1970’s despite continuous rising C02 levels.
Why no warming between 1940’s and 1970’s?
Sunshine levels were declining and global clouds were increasing.
Why warming between 1980’s and 2000’s?
Sunshine levels were increasing and global clouds declining.
What fits this cycle of cooling and warming?
Why is the Arctic sea ice declining but not sea ice around the Antarctic?
The ocean current (AMOC) that influences the AMO and the warmer phase melts more sea ice in the Arctic and the cooler phase reduces energy reaching the Arctic ocean, causing more sea ice.
Which one fits changes in temperatures since the 1940’s, CO2 or AMO and global cloud levels?
AMO and global cloud levels.
Can the AMO and global cloud levels be responsible for the range in temperature changes seen?
Only a few % change is easily enough to show the warming that has occurred in the oceans and the atmosphere, with increased sunshine hours warming the surface.
How about, “What is the second law of thermodynamics and does it explain the downward trend in the strongest (EF4 & 5) tornadoes?”