Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) questioned witnesses at a House Transportation Committee about the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act late last month.
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) questioned witnesses at a House Transportation Committee about the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act late last month.
Is it really necessary for the House Transportation Committee members to know that particular factoid in order to do their job? Making fools of Democrats is great sport, so is shooting fish in a barrel.
Agreed. Seems more like an appropriate question to ask “climate scientists.”
I’d like to ask if they really believe the world economy can be run on wind “Turbines” and solar panels?
Closed question. The answer for them is “yes”. End of conversation.
Look up “I keep six honest serving men” by Rudyard Kipling to understand what an open question is.
Hi Hotscot! Good spot. Years ago when I was presenting process-management implementation I used to stress the need for practitioners to always bear in mind the six ‘w’s: who, what, why, where, when – and how. 😉 But I stressed the point I’d been taught: always ask ‘why?’, to the seventh.
Harry I learned about that in High School. But then that was long before they decided to shift their focus to the many Global Crisis brought on by the U.S. white middle class. Oh and then they discovered this whole Gender fluidity thingy. I am afraid that today’s High School “Gradiates” believe that planet earth would be a great place to live if it weren’t for people which probably accounts for the skyrocketing suicide rates.
The Japanese often use the 5 Why’s.
When I was at school the answer to Why? was usually because my dad says so and he’s bigger than your dad
Rudy’s old place Naulauka is right down the road in Dummerston VT.
There are quite a few places around here where he used to hang out and look for characters for his stories.
Why on earth has this been given 2 negatives?
Given the fact they’ve proven their stupidity, they’ll say “of course it’s possible and it’ll be cheap energy and create zillions of jobs and we’ll save the planet and the biodiversity and it’ll be a new golden age and we’ll live happily ever after”.
you don’t have to be a climate scientist to know this extremely basic fact- anyone interested in this huge controversy should know the answer- and they should know how much it’s changed in the past few centuries and whether or not it’s causing problems- to think they’ll come up with transportation policies with zero comprehension of problem doesn’t give me confidence they can come up with smart policies
Maybe their ignorant answers demonstrate that they have not read or learned from the numerous sceptical papers and articles.
I’d expect most WUWT readers would know 400 ppm or 0.04% . Surprise us by admitting here if you did not know. Geoff S
“Maybe their ignorant answers demonstrate that they have not read or learned from the numerous sceptical papers and articles.”
And the same people are pushing censorship of any skeptical paper. so how can they read it? Worse, Minnesota is passing a “Bias” law preventing even Skeptical thought. The wave is getting larger.
The percentage is .0004%. The atmospheric CO2 increase since 1960 is .0001%.
Go back to school. 400 parts per million in percentage is .04%
>.04% is a sloppy way to portray four hundredths of one percent. It can easily be interpreted as four percent.
Why would anyone care what they think about it? They’re working for the energy sector. It doesn’t matter if they know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 or not or if they disagree.
The really big sin of these experts as displayed in pictures is the way that they arrived at an answer, then agreed with each other.
Inventing data from thin air, then reaching a confident consensus.
Giving science the reputation of used car dealers. Geoff S
‘They can come up with smart policies’
Remember that ‘smart’ preceding anything means ‘terminaly thick’.
In this world, any adjective is typically negating the true meaning.
Buying ‘Smart Water’ at $2 per litre, when we have the safest tap water in the world … is not too smart.
Any box of food labeled nutritious, is likely a poor dietary choice.
uh- I suppose- so instead of “smart policies”- I dunno, what’s a better way to say that? pragmatic policies?
Sensible policies, would be a good start.
And knowing the actual quantity that you seek to reduce to zero would seem to be a sensible first step.
Next might be to think about cost and about benefit.
And a little concern about whether policy is based on facts determined by scientific hypotheses tested by experiment and full open discussion and appraisal of alternatives, might just work out a bit more sensible than relying on magic.
It is frustrating to watch words destroyed. A shoulder-mounted environmentalist spotted conscience owl with big watery Disney eyes just suggested “imagine if the words had feelings/”. Grrrr. Pathos.
Try “smart” motorways in the UK, if you are a thrill seeker.
Funny thing Walter, I retired in 2005 and looked into local universities around the D.C. Area to inquire about getting a degree in “Climate Science”. Figured it would be a great way to engage my early retirement. I discovered that no such degree program existed. Closest I could get was Meteorology which would lead to a career in forecasting weather. You might be old enough to recall that ALGORE and gang of pirates would constantly admonish people, after we crossed his “Bridge to the 21st Century,” that we can’t conflate weather and climate. These Central Authoritarians just make this crap up as they go along.
Seems to me that if they’re legislating on something, they should at least know some basic information about the subject.
It would be helpful if we could first get our arms around what a Climate Scientist is and why everyone else is unqualified to comment on or question AGW. We could start with what colleges offer Graduate and Doctorate degrees in “Climate Science.” [note the quotes so as to exclude our Channel 7 Meteorologist from this weighty topic as they are wrong 80% of the time with the 5th day of a 5 day forecast.
No offense intended to our good weathermen/women.]
In 2007 there was no such degree program and as it stands today if there are such fields of study they need to come with a BABS degree designation for: Bureaucratic Art of Bull Shite.
Shouldn’t people borrowing on our credit and spending TRILLIONS of our dollars on Wind Farms and Solar Panel Farms and forcing civilization to abandon traditional energy sources and effecting a paradigm shift of the magnitude we are experiencing at least have some knowledge of the atmospheric gas concentration that THEY claim is causing a “Climate Crisis?”
Yes it really is necessary. Sorry. Do they need to understand all of the physics and nuances? Probably not, but they should at the very least understand the basic principles of how our atmosphere works.
Let me ask you Steve, if that was your job and you didn’t have your current background wouldn’t you want to know? Would you see that basic understanding as a key to doing your job effectively?
The house members ask the questions ( No they werent dems) so you havent understood the situation
The people being asked are clean energy transport experts – who dont know by a long shot
“Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) questioned witnesses…”
As long as people in positions of authority are directing our lives in response to their conviction there is a climate emergency, asking them to think about it is necessary and useful. I would like to ask the same question of my local council, my MP, several charities, and my grand-kids school. All of them acting with firm conviction on the basis of something they heard…somewhere.
“and my grand-kids school” The school building would give no answer. You would have to ask questions to the teachers or administrators inside.
It would be creepy to hang around the VW subcompact with the greenest bumper stickers waiting to ask an “expert”.
Around here it would be a Subaru.
Yeah. Like it might be a good plan to know what the risk of kids dying of Covid is, before pumping experimental unsafe and ineffective “gene therapies” into their little arms.
“Is it really necessary for the House Transportation Committee members to know that particular factoid in order to do their job? ” No.
What they need to know is, …is the earth warming because of the increase in CO2 and the answer to that is “yes.”
Now readers will come squealing out of their corners and say I’m wrong. To which I say, find me a person who is educated in the field who says, increasing CO2 in the way we have, isn’t warming the earth. Even famous skeptics agree it is contributing. Roy Spender thinks it does, so does Anthony Watts. Oh and let’s not forget Judith Curry. I’ll wait and look forward to the list ….
Spencer, Watts and Curry etc. are expressing their opinion as there has never been a single, credible, empirical, scientific study done that demonstrates atmospheric CO2 warms the planet.
Happer also believes CO2 warms the planet but believes the effect is logarithmic and at 400ppm it is now inconsequential.
Thanks for your concise and clarifying comment.
“Spencer, Watts and Curry etc. are expressing their opinion as there has never been a single, credible, empirical, scientific study done that demonstrates atmospheric CO2 warms the planet.”
Well put. Thank you very much.
Climate science is made up of speculation, assumptions and assertions about CO2, but no evidence has ever been put forward that shows CO2 is controlling anything about the way the Earth’s atmosphere behaves None. Not one shred of evidence.
Alarmist Climate Science is a House of Cards..
Notice the phrase in Kip Hansen’s review of Longhurst’s book:
Many readers here are well versed in at least some of the myriad atmospheric and oceanic forces that add up to the complex “coupled non-linear chaotic system” . . . that is the Earth’s climate.
This is the one question these experts should be asked:
Is the earth’s climate a complex coupled non-linear chaotic system?
If their answer is “yes” as it should be, then how can they be so certain in their alarmist claims?
I’d love to see the Congress persons ask that question and watch the panelists fall out of their chairs.
There is a good chance that many climate “experts” would not understand what a “coupled non-linear chaotic system” actually means.
I wrote my PhD thesis on such a system and my models agreed very well with the experiments.
And all aided and abetted by computers. GIGO.
You are 100% correct.
But what IS causing temperatures to rise?
The answer is simply that global Net Zero and “Clean Air” efforts are removing dimming SO2 aerosols from our atmosphere, and the cleansed air results in more intense solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
The cleaner the air, the hotter it will get, with temperatures probably exceeding those of the MWP, because of our higher population, and industrial inputs. My guess would be +1.5 Deg. C. within 2 years.
The image shows roughly current levels of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere. During the MWP, such an image would have been entirely white.
Also see “Net-Zero” catastrophe beginning
“My guess would be +1.5 Deg. C. within 2 years.”
Given heat capacities, can earth-sized things settle in 2 years?
A VEI4 volcanic eruption, with an input of about 0.2 Megaton of SO2 aerosols, will cause average, anomalous global temperatures to begin decreasing in about 2 months, full cooling effect, on average, 16 months.
The answer is Yes, earth-sized “things” (atmospheres) can respond that quickly.
BTW, that’s +1.5 Deg. C from NOW.
“BTW, that’s +1.5 Deg. C from NOW”
I was wondering about that. Thanks for th clarification.
So this 1.5C increase from today will carry us above the 2016, temperature highpoint by about 0.9C.
I’m skeptical, but then again, I’m always skeptical. 🙂 At least we will be able to know the result soon. Maybe. Barring volcanic eruptions.
I see that the link did not work.
Here it is again:
“My guess would be +1.5 Deg. C. within 2 years.”
Ok. It will be interesting to see what happens. We have a hypothesis we can test within our lifetimes, unlike most CO2 alarmist claims.
Currently, the temperatures have cooled by about 0.6C since the 2016, satellite-era temperature highpoint.
A house of cards enthusistically promoted by some of the most evil and venal people on Earth.
Ain’t it the truth!
“credible, empirical, scientific study done … [on] … the planet”
Yes exactly right.
So it probably is helping improve our climates (there are many, not one). But it may or may not be the main reason for that improvement. It is highly unlikely to be a significant driver going forward since it has pretty much been tapped out and the empirical evidence points to only around 2 degrees per doubling (or less!)
If you run through an unheated room in winter, you will in fact (by irrefutable physics!) warm the room. That doesn’t mean that it will be significant or that you could choose that method to prevent your pipes from freezing.
Simple Simon of course will never acknowledge this. Somehow if we concur that all other things being equal more CO2 leads to some warming, we have to jump to it being a catastrophic EMERGENCY!!
“What they need to know is, …is the earth warming because of the increase in CO2 and the answer to that is “yes.””
Prove that CO2 has any discernable effect on the Earth’s weather or temperature.
That goes for anyone who thinks the same way, expert or not. Prove it. No proof has ever been offered. That’s why we are still arguing about it.
So Tom, we have a very likely El Nino in full swing by the end of the year. El Nino’s are when the records get broken. I’m interested to know whether if we see temps climbing to record global levels if it will change your mind or whether you will dismiss that evidence?
Record global levels?
I’ll bite – let’s see if the GAST exceeds ~27 degrees Celsius. If not, is an admission that you’re wrong finally coming??
Ha! That’s one thing I CAN guarantee. Simon will never concede his errors.
Why would he, when very likely someone pays him for his words of “wisdom” on here?
Al Gore and others set up such a scheme years ago.
Simon, why do you and your “believer buddies” not ask the questions are warming temperature harmful? In what ways? To what extent? Why should we prevent? And, are the benefits greater than the risk/preventions?
You absolutely cannot predict an El Nino by the end of the year from available observations and measurements. You are simply demonstrating a chicken entrails mindset. Good luck with that, but do try to avoid comments that waste the time of serious people. Geoff S
Silly uneducated comment. Here I’ll help you … although one google search was all that was needed.
And for the record I’m not the one doing the predicting. That’s being done by those who get paid the dollars
I am pleased to see that you recognise the problem..
Too many experts reaching a “consensus”.
It really is chicken entrails level.
I wonder if these experts are wealthy from clever betting on horses.
All your comments are silly uneducated comments, S.Simon.
You don’t need to put a headline. !
By telling everyone that El Ninos cause the warming, you are TOTALLY DISCOUNTING CO2 as a driver.
Well Done 🙂
Hanging out for El Nino so you can blame CO2..
now that is ignorance writ large. !
“By telling everyone that El Ninos cause the warming, you are TOTALLY DISCOUNTING CO2 as a driver.”
Sure you are deliberately being silly? Look, there are things called letters. They have an order, and when the order is right they have meaning. It’s called reading. You need to learn to do it so you understand what others are trying to tell you. Here I’ll say it simply. El Nino is no more the cause of the warming than the tide is the cause of sea level rise.
You are correct in saying that El Nino is not the caused of the warming.
But, on the other hand, it is NOT CO2!
I have an article “The Definitive Cause of La Nina and El Nino events” which you need to read for the answer as to what actually causes them
The predicting done by those who get paid the dollars.
At long last, Simon speaks the truth about something.
And YOUR dollars, dear reader. And directly increasing the ocean of dollars of those paying the predictors.
So El Niño and not CO2?
Yawn…. no El Nino has been around for ever. That’s your clue….
Thx for that.
I see you have learnt the avoidance “sayings” here. You graduate to level 1 WUWT.
You have no clue, S.Simon..
Yes, El Nino is the cause of the warming..
It is powered by the SUN and WINDS,
If you really think the warming is caused by El Nino then good luck to you. News flash …. it’s not.
Simon: “So Tom, we have a very likely El Nino in full swing by the end of the year. El Nino’s are when the records get broken. I’m interested to know whether if we see temps climbing to record global levels if it will change your mind or whether you will dismiss that evidence?”
You said it yourself. An El Niño and not CO2.
It is great that S.Simon has finally realised that El Nino is the ONLY cause of the small, beneficial recent warming in the last 50 years.
He obviously KNOWS that CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with that warming.
Yawn. See above. Learn to read.
“I’m interested to know whether if we see temps climbing to record global levels if it will change your mind or whether you will dismiss that evidence?”
Let’s wait and see if that happens first. You apparently assume it will. I don’t know if it will or not, but going by the historic temperature record, I would expect cooling to be kicking in because in the recent past temperatures have warmed for a few decades and then they have cooled for a few decades, with about a 2.0C range from warmest to coolest, and this pattern repeats. So if history is my guide we are in for a few decades of cooling.
If temperatures go above the 2016 highpoint in the near future, of course I would have to reexamine my position, but I will wait until that happens.
“So if history is my guide we are in for a few decades of cooling.”
Great so if it does step up again this summer will you be concerned? I’m just trying to work out if you are genuinely open to the possibility that this warming is not going to stop as predicted by most climate scientists or you have a closed mind?
“Great so if it does step up again this summer will you be concerned?”
I wouldn’t necessarily be concerned.
If the temperature spike only goes as high as 2016, 1998, or 1934 and then cooling occurs afterwards, then I would attribute this temporary temperature increase to El Nino.
What would concern me is if there were no cooling phase, and the temperatures continued to climb above the 2016 temperature highpoint. Then, I would have to question my assumptions.
I still think the climate is cyclical and that we are headed into the cooling phase of this cycle. Can CO2 or SO2 put a stop to this cycle? Time will tell.
‘Prove that CO2 has any discernable effect on the Earth’s weather or temperature.’
I’d settle for any EVIDENCE that OUR emissions of CO2 have had any effect on climate. (h/t Pat Frank)
Actually, since warming causes sea level rise, and sea levels—according to NOAA data—have been rising since 1863, which is 87 years before CO2 rise began around 1950 … the conclusion is CO2 isn’t the true cause of warming.
That would be true of CO2 was the only factor on play here. Clue…. it’s not.
Warming yes. Boiling the oceans…not so much. Huge difference?
That is pretty accurate Ron. Those vocal skeptics accept CO2 warms things, they just don’t think it is going to be a major problem.
They think CO2 is part of what’s influencing temperature but not the only thing- including multiple factors with different cycles and many unknowns- and they think the warming is a minor issue- not worth spending hundreds of trillions of dollars on. Read Stephen Koonin’s “Unsettled”- it’s written is very readable manner even a Congress person could read it in a few hours and become very knowledgeable.
“They think CO2 is part of what’s influencing temperature but not the only thing- including multiple factors with different cycles and many unknowns-
Well then Joseph if you have got the answer to the warming, get writing man. You are going to be one rich dude when crack the warming puzzle that no skeptic has been able to do you yet… without of course factoring in CO2.
Hey, I’m no scienist- just saying what guys like Koonin and many other REAl scientists have to say. But perhaps your vision of the universe has only a few variables- that does make living easy when you don’t have to include all the factors.
OK fair enough. But if you are going to do the sensible thing and listening to the very people who study this stuff maybe you should pay attention to what every nationally representative scientific body on the planet says, and that is mans CO2 emissions are warming the planet.
So, simple Simon, why do you come here? Do you think you’re going to enlighten us? You really do seem a like a simple Simon. So, bug off.
“maybe you should pay attention to what every nationally representative scientific body on the planet says,”
These “scientific bodies” are a scandal as big or bigger than the human-caused climate change scam.
These professional organizations have corrupted themselves with politics. If they followed the scientific method they wouldn’t be making statements promoting CO2 as being dangerous because there is no scientific evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth. To say otherwise, is unscientific.
These professional organizations are making unsubstantiated assertions about a connection between CO2 and the Earth’s temperatures and weather.
I have certainly lost respect for these professional organizations since the human-caused climate change scam began. Everything they say is political. I don’t listen to them anymore. I tune them out like I tune out CNN. And for the same reason: All you get is propaganda from them.
No Climate Scientist has been able to crack it either despite what you and they think
Again.. you could produce scientific evidence..
Except we all KNOW THAT YOU CAN’T
Solar and clouds fluctuations have warmed the planet very slightly since the coldest period in 10,000 years.
Be very thankful !
Yet we are still just a tiny bump about that minimum, still in a cool period, and way below what the norm for the Holocene.
“Well then Joseph if you have got the answer to the warming”‘
There is no “the warming”. All over the planet, over the last 150 odd years, some places have warmed (mostly built-up areas), some have cooled, and some have remained relatively static. Nothing global is going on. But by presenting a single line on a graph for “global temperature”, we get a very false impression of what may be happening.
It is not a skeptic’s job to crack the warming puzzle.
The skeptic’s role is to poke holes in the solutions presented for the warming puzzle.
“Read Stephen Koonin’s “Unsettled”- it’s written is very readable manner even a Congress person could read it in a few hours and become very knowledgeable.”
Are you sure? 🙂
Maybe we should all send our congresscritters a copy of this book.
They could understand it if they wanted to- that’s the problem. I’ve got an old friend- he’s an old fashioned FDR liberal. He has 9 years of college. If I ask him to read it- he’ll refuse. So I don’t discuss the subject with him. Some well educated people can be very stupid on some subjects. I bet Simple Simon hasn’t read it either. 🙂
It’s human nature to resist having your worldview challenged. People hang on to their conceptions of reality very hard.
It’s not comfortable learning something you thought was correct turns out not to be correct. People refuse to look at things that contradict their pre-concieved notions. Like your friend refusing to even address the subject. His mind is made up and he doesn’t want it changed. He’s more comfortable that way.
So far the mild warming has been a net positive for the planet. Let us know when the climate emergency becomes problematic.
according to Koonin, the coldest days are not as cold- nights are not as cold- but there aren’t more hot days- sounds good to me!
Here in Woke-achusetts, in the past 6 months, there have been only 2 days above 70 F so most people here are desperately waiting for it warm up! Yet, even here, especially here, there are scads of climatistas screaming every day that the world is going to end soon.
Simon look at the UAH graph and then look at the USCRN. Satellite data reproduced by scientist who, most importantly relies on observational data rather than a video game and have no financial gain in this thing, and the only confirmed surface temperature data without any UHI / thermometer issues. You can’t dismiss us as a bunch of wacko conspiracy theorists. If anyone is in denial about this situation, it’s you.
No empirical evidence says atmospheric CO2 drives the Earth’s temperature. Plenty of empirical evidence says it does no such thing.
Observations trump theory.
Absolutely anyone working in the field of global warming, transportation, net zero, or anything remotely connected to climate change and policy needs to know the factual basis of % CO2 in the atmosphere.
It is as fundamental to understanding and therefore policy as a politician knowing that there are 50 states in the US.
Anyone in a position of policy who does not know that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is .04% is unqualified and should be fired.
We do not know that CO2 controls increasing temperatures in any rigorous, scientific sense.
We do know that predictions based on the “science” have not come to pass.
The arctic is not ice free, Mt. Kilimanjaro is still snow capped, the islands threatened by rising oceans are still there and doing fine, polar bear population has increased.
Qualified scientists who disagree include Dr Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr William Happer, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Steven Koonin, many others.
That you are ignorant of these highly qualified scientists and the reasons for their rebuttal of the CO2 causes warming myth shows that you have drunk the koolaid without knowledge.
The IPPC itself said, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”
Belief without knowledge, based on consensus, is not science, but politics.
Well, you see, you’ve hit on the problem here … which is that most who claim to be climate scientists or experts on climate policy actually know little to nothing about any of the sciences involved in truly understanding how the climate performs. That would be sciences like physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, geology, and many more. And even those so called experts who have an education in the relevant sciences simply defer to the bureaucrats at the UN and to other scientists whose work consists entirely of assuming that CO2 is causing the climate to warm and then go on about coming up with models to predict how all that warming is going to kill the planet and kill us all, which is scientific fantasy.
Primary lesson of surviving education, from a day and field of study where graduates were a tiny fraction of candidates:
Assume that what the professor says is true without question, then take the next logical step.
The system has huge disadvantages (and huge advantages!). The system selects for certain personalities. Occasionally free thinkers sneak through.
Koonin in “Unsettled” agrees that there has been some warming but he points out we don’t know how much is human caused and regardless, it’s nothing to panic over. I suppose you think knowing what Mickey Mann says is all they need to know.
I doubt they know how to calculate percentages from parts per million – too much arithmetic for people who let their computers do all their thinking for them.
The “answer to that” is clearly no.
That would violate many physical laws including 2LOT. It is true that CO2 increases do have an effect. They cause an increase in precipitation. This all becomes clear when a person understands exactly how IR flows through the atmosphere and the effect of the atmospheric boundary layer.
From a former NASA atmospheric physicist:
“The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming.”
“Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.”
– Dr. FM Miskolczi
You are correct that most skeptics are also confused on this issue. As far as I can tell, none of them have taken the time to understand boundary layer effects.
“From a former NASA atmospheric physicist:”
He may be but what about the squillion others who say he is wrong?
You might like to see what they have to say before finding some random who no longer works there. I’m guessing you wont be quite so keen to quote NASA now?
Anthony did an experiment that showed CO2 doesn’t cause warming. Can you do one that shows it does? Attached is from the experiment.
“CO2 doesn’t cause warming” is too specific a conclusion. Needs more context, even as a headline.
It is totally understandable that Simple Simon CONDONES IGNORANCE. !
Worships it, even.. (so he can “feel-good” about himself)
These IGNORANT FOOLS are saying we should decrease CO2, but are totally ignorant about the very basis of what they are talking about
“Simple Simon “
Brilliant. Think of that yourself?
What is the effect of increasing CO2? No one knows. The no-feedback value is probably 1.1 to 1.2 degree C per doubling of plant food in the air.
With feedbacks, is it 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 or 5.0 degrees C? No one knows, based upon GIGO GCMs. Observation suggests maybe 1.5 degrees C., in which case, no worries.
It might help if they were also aware that trivial increases in a trace gas essential to all life on earth and, also, a trivial alleged warming have so far been 100% beneficial. And almost certain to still be beneficial if the increases were doubled.
Simon, people in white labcoats and with many letters/acronyms after their name means crap…. the “educated” also said the bioweapon they called a “vaccine” woul prevent you from getting covid or transmitting it… both lies… this was in light of the fact they knew covid itself was little more than a bad flu season but instead decided to keep the lie going… dishonesty is everywhere at the top so please stop with your “find an educated person in the field”… been to a college campus and see who’s teaching your kids?
The should probably know it, yes. They should have at least heard the figure “350 ppm” and then been able to work out what that was as a percentage. Even if their calculation was wrong, starting with something like 400ppm would have been kind of acceptable.
They could also enquire if they know anything about the most potent greenhouse gas–dihydrogen monoxide, how much is in the atmosphere and whether emissions should be banned. That will get them scratching their heads for sure.
How can they make a judgement on how ‘polluting’ a given motor vehicle is if they have no frame of reference as to atmospheric CO2 levels?
Does the term ‘trust but verify’ not extend to public figures?
and two motor vehicles of the same model and year can have different CO2 emissions.
If they can’t go to the correct percentages, maybe they could go to the EPA reports of several (10 or more years?) ago, that increasing the efficiencies of ICE vehicles to unachievable levels would net approximately 0.00076 degrees reduction in warming. One would expect people making these monumental decisions to know this stuff.
My 1986 Oldsmobile got about 14 mpg. I’m happy with 1/3 the hp for commuting to an office. With $5/g gas I’m thriiled with increasing the efficiencies of ICE vehicles. I expect a last-gasp catastrophic gas price spike some day. It seems possible but not certain I could reach retirement first. Politically, voters who jeered Carter can’t be allowed to see it?
They should at least have some idea of the order of magnitude — ten precent? one percent? one tenth of a percent?
My favorite unknown is how much sea level rise is expected in the next ten years. Many don’t even get the order of magnitude right — meters? feet? inches?
To be picky about the above … do changes in “land height” count as sea level rise?
Here is my TV interview of 12Apr2023 on the Climate scam:
Here is my TV interview of 14Apr2023 with Dr Roger Hodkinson on the Covid and Climate scams:
I state that most politicians are climate and energy imbeciles – they know nothing about climate and energy, should not even opine on it because they utterly ignorant. Nobody should let these energy imbeciles near the hot stove.
Our politicians have caused great harm to humanity with their foolish prattling about climate change, carbon taxes and green energy. All they have done is drive up the cost of energy and made the grid less reliable.
In our modern world, when you drive up the cost of energy you drive up the cost of everything. Cheap, abundant, reliable, dispatchable energy is the lifeblood of modern society.
Regarding “the science”, anyone who truly believes in the “fossil fuel-driven climate emergency” is an unscientific fool. The CAGW hypothesis has been disproved many times in many ways – it is decades-old false propaganda.
Here is a summary of my positions on these two global scams.
The first chapter of my second free book: Send it to everyone.
COVID & CLIMATE CHRONICLES – THE BIG CULL
Allan MacRae, 30Mar2023 to Present
Most of this information was documented previously at
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT
Allan MacRae, 20Oct2021 to Present
“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence”
Our scientific predictions on both Climate and Covid are infinitely more accurate than the mainstream narratives, which have been false and baselessly alarmist to date.
“… made the grid less reliable.”
“Wind Report 2005” is an honest engineering report that details the serious shortcomings of wind power – perhaps that is why the E.On Netz power company took it off their website.
The report can be found here:
BOTTOM LINE: Intermittent wind and solar power does not belong in the grid – it is a just another green fraud – costly, ineffective and destructive.
I wrote similar conclusions in 2002 that were confirmed by E.On Netz insightful “Wind Report 2005”:
E.On Netz, in their report “Wind Power 2005” describes the problems.
Formerly at http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
One of the greatest disadvantages of wind power is the need for almost 100% conventional backup. E.On Netz (the largest wind power generator in the world) says the “substitution capacity” in Germany was 8% in 2003, and will drop to 4% by 2020. See Figure 7 in the E.On report.
“In concrete terms, this means that in 2020,
with a forecast wind power capacity of over
48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of
traditional power production can be replaced by
these wind farms.”
Another big problem with wind power is that power varies as the cube of the wind speed – this causes sharp peaks and valleys in the power output from wind farms, so extreme that it can cause the entire grid to crash – try that in winter – remember the 1998 Quebec ice storm? People died…
A NEAR-MISS OCCURRED IN GERMAN DURING CHRISTMAS WEEK OF 2004 – SEE FIG. 6 IN THE E.ON REPORT.
“The feed-in capacity can change frequently
within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6,
which reproduces the course of wind power feedin
during the Christmas week from 20 to 26
Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on
Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year
at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only
10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds
to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired
power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power
feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW.
Handling such significant differences in feed-in
levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.”
in summary, the problem with Wind Power is not just the Capacity Factor of about 20%, it is the Substitution Factor, which by 2020 in Germany is projected to be just 4%.
The simple question by Rep. LaMalfa, and the ridiculous answers by Democrat Politicans, shows that they have latched onto a theme, carbon pollution and Climate Change, to further an agenda that suits the WOKE theme. Nothing to do with Science, it is underhanded politics. The difference between 0.04% and 8.0% is 200 times, which leads to real questions about the whole agenda.
Those 4 witnesses were advocates for contractors & infrastructure improvements. Their jobs are to lobby for building more stuff. They represent AASHTO, Sand & Gravel industry, Builders & Contractors associations. One guy was Texas Dept of Transportation … Lady on the end was Washingtion State lifelong bureaucrat (now representing Road and Transportation Builders Association).
… lady on the end …
‘Regardless of the percent in the atmosphere, we KNOW that half of it comes from transportation’, and as such transportation CO2 is something that is problematic and needs to be addressed.
Lady on the End needs better perspective, better education, and more curiosity about the world. The people she is supposed to be representing don’t want to kill individual transportation. Either that, or the American Road and Transportation Builders Association are a bunch of idiots, liars, & shills.
It’s not just any factoid. It’s the most basic fact in climate science. Even Congress persons are smart enough to read “Unsettled” in a few hours and have a pretty good understanding of this gigantic controversy. To be off by orders of magnitude is disgusting.
Actually, it was not committee members who were asked the questions, it was the “expert” witnesses appearing before the committee who are opining on actual laws and rules to reduce CO2, and yes, it is entirely relevant that they don’t know their assess from holes in the ground when it comes to CO2.
It’s not sport – it’s serious as a heart attack, or a famine, or an economic depression.
Actually, it was not committee members who were asked the questions, it was the “expert” witnesses
which makes it even worse 🙁
But not unexpected.
I believe it is necessary to reduce government committees by 60% and eliminate bureaucratic cesspools like education, transportation, etc. completely.
I also think it is necessary to prove rather, than program computers to say, that something so small and insignificant can have such a controlling impact on global surface temperatures.
So yes it really is necessary for every citizen let alone government officials, to know that truth and shatter this mythology once and for all and for the ABNBCBS MS/CNN/fox to lead the charge and push back on not just science but most important a Federal Government that uses taxpayer money to buy the fake science (actual computer programs) to provide the Central Authoritarians the false front to shred the Bill of Rights and force us to bend the knee on a foundation of falsehoods that only serves to enrich the Faceless Cultural Elite Ruling Class.
I just say Doug LaMalfa for President
And if you’re proposing to collapse the economy because some Climastrologists have you terrified that we’re about to suffocate from too much CO2, maybe it IS relevant that you should educate yourself to the degree that thousands of ordinary folks who read this blog have taken the time to do. I do NOT think that’s too much to ask.
If they really are too stupid to understand this then what sort of infrastructure are we going to end up with?
Gee, this former truck driver knew the answer to that question! I also know what the specs were concerning the emissions of the truck I drove and how the pollution control systems it had function.
And those guys are those that will lead the way in making policies that will affect drivers among many others in the industry. And you say they don’t need to know even the basics about the what and why they will be voting on?
I get what you’re saying, but they should know what they’re talking about if they’re going to influence policy in any meaningful way.
It is all part of educating people. Until people understand how absurd the CO2 hoax is, it will be hard to make progress. Doug LaMalfa is my representative in Congress and I am glad he is pushing this issue.
Any science undergrad should know Earth’s dry air is 78% N2, 21% O2 and almost one percent Ar, leaving only a small fraction of one percent for everything else.
Undergrad? I knew that by 5th grade!
Standards have been lowered.
Yes, it is completely necessary. That Committee is asking the world to make significant changes which will impoverish everyone, and they ought to know their facts. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is hardly a “gotcha” question, is it?
You’d think the answer is no… but when one of them says “but we known 49% of carbon emmissions are from transportation”, you’d be forgiven for thinking thay they think that too much C02 is a problem… so the actual answer is yes, they should know… any espousing al gore “the sky is falling” climate think needs to bring their brain to the table so it can be weighed and measured for stupidity.
I’ve often wondered what these people know and mean when they say “dangerous / planet destroying” levels of CO2. The answer would appear to be 5 to 10%.
There’s not much hope for the future if this is the best we have
They may be the best we have but they are also the best we chose to have. They are certainly not the best available. Which is a shame belonging to the voters.
Yes, I think the weak link here is the uninformed/misinformed voter.
Biden was credited with 81 million from-all-over-the-place “BALLOTS”, NOT VOTES
It has to do with ENTRENCHED, A-to-Z corruption of the voting system, carefully obfuscated by the lapdog media and PR nonsense.
If we vote for administrators based on their climate knowledge, then who administrates?
How about people who are at least capable of understanding the basics of what they’re administrating? How about people who are capable of knowing more than one thing at a time?
Right, most lefty politicians won’t hesitate to rant about climate emergency but won’t spend a few hours to read Koonin’s “Unsettled” so they’d have a basic understanding of the issue. So it’s one thing to say they don’t need to know what percent of the atmosphere is CO2- then if that’s the case, those politicians should shut up about the “emergency”.
Okay, that’s at least the third reference. Are you on commission selling the book?
It’s just that I’ve learned a lot from it. Been reading this site for a few years and most of it was over my head. Now I have a better understanding- at the elementary level. There may be others here like me so I hope they can read the book if they want to understand this subject better. If everybody in the western world read it- I think the problem would be over- because there is no problem. As a forester, I just watched a webinar by some forestry big shots- ranting and raving about the climate emergency. If I had jumped into the discussions I’d have been the only one not singing that tune. I should have but failed to tell all of them to read Unsettled. So, I’ll keep talking about it. 🙂
In my part of the world (Scotland), the equivalent is shooting low pheasants on a driven shooting day. Very bad manners, rather naughty, but sometimes irresistible. But, to your point, Steve. Absolutely essential for them to know that factoid. If they are so-called law-makers elected to rule over us, and yet manage to display that level of ignorance (quite common over this side of the pond as well), it is simply outrageous and completely destroys their competence, and credibility as lawmakers. The waffle coming back to Rep Doug from the committee members in answer to his questions was, to quote our new King, “quite appalling”.
“Absolutely essential for them to know that factoid.”
If they were asked about the market price of lithium and where it’s sourced and they didn’t know, then that would be an issue. But knowing how much CO2 is in the air in order to deal with airports, railroads, highways harbors and supply chain companies & commodities? He could have asked them where the Mona Lisa is and who painted it?
Sorry mate but that is absolute bollocks. If they’re creating legislation based on the need to reduce co2 in the atmosphere then they’d know what they are talking about.
“Best know what they’re talking about”
These are not legislators; they are the “experts” telling legislators how to vote!
Feynman told us “science” is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
If they knew how much CO2 is in the atmosphere they might understand that the planet is about 250ppm from becoming extinct and yet life has flourished with 7,000ppm CO2 atmospheric content.
These are people making life altering decisions for many, many people. They should have a good grasp of the reasons and facts about the subject they are discussing. Otherwise, they will not have the ability to make correct decisions. Too many bureaucrats operate in this environment where knowing WHY you are doing something is less important that just DOING something, anything to enhance their position by asserting control over their “subjects”.
You might have identified a core skill for their vocation.
Since too much CO2 is seen as a drastic, Earth destroying danger- they sure the hell ought to know how much of it there is and why it’s such a threat. Anybody can learn the basics of this never before seen such threat to life on Earth in a few hours. The ordinary person may not need to know, but the elite policy makers must know the basics- just the basics- it’s just not asking too much – many of these reps are highly educated, many are lawyers- they could read “Unsettled” in a few hours and understand most of it too, if they only tried.
Nitrogen, Oxygen, everything else. Educated humans should have a decent guess at the percent of the three categories.
You’re usually more sensible than this Steve.
The key point is that they are NOT focusing on dealing with “airports, railroads, highways harbors and supply chain companies & commodities”. They’re diverting the funding for those necessary functions to a completely spurious goal of eliminating CO2 emissions.
If they’re pushing Net Zero it is absolutely incumbent upon them to know such basic facts.
Of course they shouldn’t be pushing Net Zero. They should be focused on “airports, railroads, highways harbors and supply chain companies & commodities” rather than an unnecessary attack on the economy.
But they are in fact focusing on the fake EMERGENCY!!! so they should have educated themselves at least enough to be able to explain why they think destroying the economy is necessary.
Actually, JohnT, when I was a boy I ground-sluiced grouse with a single shot 410. Our family enjoyed this additional protein. Take care of the family is the first rule.
On a par with the US pollie worried about tipping over the island of Guam.
It’s unfortunate that we don’t have congressional hearings dedicated to talking about the actual science. I’m not saying that our energy is not important but how does anyone believe that the science is settled? It’s just crazy how far this has gone. The only congressional testimony of that kind I have seen is the one back many years ago with Dr. Mann, Dr. Curry, Dr. Christy, and Dr. Pielke. It wasn’t even about the science; it was more about how important Michael Mann was to “the cause” and how incompetent or evil the other 3 were.
It’s a pity he didn’t also ask them “What fraction of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere every year is caused by human beings?”
Most of the alarmed think it is all from humans, when in fact it is one twentieth. Nature creates 20 times as much CO2 as human beings do.
Which means a total abolition of CO2 would reduce the amount going into the atmosphere each year by 5%.
As a second issue, when I click on the ‘take me to YouTube link http://www.youtube.com ‘ I get advised that YouTube is blocked. I can’t say if that’s censorship of technical issue. I live outside the US. But given that the link includes the name of this site, it’s reasonable to further investigate the possibility this is due to censorship.
And… now I can connect. Here’s the text of the message I received earlier:
http://www.youtube.com is blocked http://www.youtube.com refused to connect.
So, disregard my second observation, but I stand by the first.
Oh, and there is a typo above.
It should have read “Censorship or a technical issue.” In either case, the issue is now moot.
Still Ok for me . So not censorship. Occams Razor
Where I live ( spain) it is still blocked.
Try using a VPN.
I’m in Spain and it works fine for me.
I was under the impression that we do not actually know how much each (nature and human) contributes. We can measure individual cars and coal power stations. We can measure the CO2 concentration in a particular built up industrial area. I suspect at best we have something between a guess and an estimate – not something any self respecting scientist would want to bet his life on.
91 volcanoes were discovered under the west Antarctic ice sheet in 2018.
How many undiscovered volcanoes lie on the sea beds of the worlds oceans emitting unknown quantities of CO2?
How many fissures and vents exist and precisely how are these affected by tectonic movement?
I saw this a couple of days ago:
As I understand it, a number of shapes that could be volcanos were found. I have not seen any evidence yet of volcanic heat, but I would be thankful of a link if I have missed it. Geoff S
Its more than ‘shapes’ I understand they have active volcanoes. But of course any volcanic region has dormant or non currently active volcanoes included.
Several times I have tried to reply (politely and factually) to Climate Change alarmists on YouTube, but have been blocked. I can only conclude that censorship is being applied.
Yes. Thats will be ‘moderation’ as any site is entitled to do. It isnt right but it is what it is. Not many places are as generous for different views as WUWT
“Not many places are as generous for different views as WUWT”
Yes, we should be thankful for that.
This is purest pedantry on my part so will pretend to bring it in a spirit of fun: the word factoid (which apppears in a post above) was coined by Norman Mailer to mean a thing that looks like a fact but is not. It is a similar formation to “humanoid”. He described them as “facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper….”
So the reality of “the” climate emergency is a factoid, not the detail about the fraction of the atmosphere that is CO₂.
(I’ll get back in my box now.)
at least two online sources define factoid as folows;
which is somewhat contradictory, making the word useless.
i have always regarded it as number 2, but the use of ‘oid’ leans me towards 1 as you point out.
It is interesting (to me) that some dictionaries tell us that “literally”, through frequent use, also now means “figuratively”.
I have to concede the power of frequent use. The only meaning any word has is its shared meaning. I don’t like it, but words—unlike objective reality—are defined by concensus.
That said, I will still blow gently on my pedantic embers, if only in the presence of friends.
“I have to concede the power of frequent use.”
Yes. It’s real.
Driven by “influencers”.
regular means; at a common, repeating interval, often referring to time.
it does not mean ‘standard’, ‘medium’, ‘normal’ etc, no matter what the incorrect frequent use.
“A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition.”
That’s also the defintion of propaganda. We get this every day with the Leftwing Media. You can’t/shouldn’t believe a word they say. It’s *all* a leftwing publicity effort, when they are involved.
Maybe we’re all saying the same thing but we’re using different ratios of words with inverted meanings?
Hurray for words that have meanings.
That is the question I ask anyone who comes at me believing in man-made climate change – to date only one person got it right and he was a pilot.
I enjoy “baiting” alarmists with the question – “Do you know the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere ?”.
They normally haven’t got a clue and mumble and obfuscate – so I up the ante “Alright, it must at least be significant if we can use it to control the climate ?”
(I invariably have to insist on an answer.)
At which point they normally throw in an answer of four or five percent. (Some idiots guess 40% or more – now that would kill us.)
“Too big !” says I. “Try a smaller guess…….”
They then go through an iterative (and increasingly incredulous) process of reductions and prompting until they get to the actual figure of 0.04%.
At this point some go “that can’t be right – where do you get your data !” and some just outright don’t believe it – but all look vaguely perplexed by this piece of information.
At which point I tell them – “Don’t believe me – just go and look it up – then come back and explain to me how on earth we are going to “control” the climate with this one tiny variable – and while you are at it check out the natural cycle and find that man is only contributing only 8% of total – so if you think 0.04% is small now try using 0.0032% to control the climate – and even then only if we completely abandon fossil fuel use in its entirety – immediately !”
And if you didn’t know it CO2 in the atmosphere is 99.99% saturated in the spectrum supposed to cause warming – so now explain to me how you are going to control the climate with a variable of just 0.00000032% – short answer is it is simply not possible.
A surprisingly large number come up with 4% – which leads me to conclude that whenever they hear or read 0.04% or 400ppm they presume they have either misheard or misunderstood and only the 4 remains lodged in their brains. Clearly 0.04% is too small to be significant and creates a cognitive dissonance between their belief and reality.
I tell them to stop being ignorant and proud of it – do some actual checking.
“Nothing is more frightening than ignorance in action.” – Goethe
“A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind”. – Robert Bolton
Nice story Chasmsteed! Really the public, politicians and most environmentalists wouldn’t have a clue about the composition of the atmosphere, never mind the CO2% level, or what the main ‘greenhouse’ gas is that dominates CO2. I am interested in the human generated portion that has been calculated/estimated between 3% and 14% by sceptics of the AGW orthodoxy. Is there a more definitive number? You have mentioned 8%, what’s the source of that figure?
I’m not a big fan of the IPCC, but in some respects, the work they do is cited as ‘authoritative’. I do not necessarily recognize a lot of what they say as being the ‘final word’ on a subject, but they do have this nice diagram that would seem to support the concept that very little of the increase in the atmospheric content of CO2 is human-caused.
The reference is from page 471 of AR5 (“Fifth Assessment Report”), the sixth chapter. A simple search engine inquiry for Ch 6 Fifth Assessment Report should take you to a set of diagrams (somewhat cartoonish, but useable) from the chapter; it is one of the first ones, as I recall (likely a flawed memory).
Their figure is 3.8% of the increase is ‘fossil fuels’, and 0.5% is ‘land use changes’, for a total of 4.3% of the annual increase. May be accurate, may not be accurate; I honestly do not know. I also know that Poyet (2021) cites a calculation that SIX percent of the annual increase is human-caused. Again, I do not know. It is a most interesting read, however. I can recommend it, if you have nothing to do for the next two or three years (it’s over 500 pages long).
Hope that helps,
Progressives are almost always innumerate.
Imagine living in a nation run by innumerates and working in a sector competing with a nation run by mathletes.
The other good question to ask (props to Chris Monckton) is: which is more deadly to humans: Carbon-dioxide or Dihydrogen-monoxide?
40 people dressed in white … reflecting (almost) all the energy hitting them … sitting in the Rose Bowl crowd of 100,000 people dressed in grey.
Can you see them … in the aerial video, from the blimp?
Let’s add another 10 people (dressed in white) and see how much the temp on the field increases.
Indeed a good question, that I also ask people. As a follow-up, I ask what is the average temperature of the earth. No one seems to know the answer.
Scenes like this show that a command of detail is not required, a command of the current mantras and soundbites is.
I’ll just follow you….
I’ll see their 5…
We’ve got a 5, 7, er…. 8
Good luck with them.
Yes, I think in their minds, the percentage of CO2 is not relevant. They have been told that the current percentage is dangerous and they think that’s all they need to know to make decisions.
Where’s the evidence that CO2 is dangerous? There is none. Ask those Democrats about that lack of evidence.
Exactly so who cares about what they know? It’s not their field. Nothing will change as to whether they believe it does or not.
I tried asking the question at a dinner party last night.
The average answer was 7% ! Only one person, a retired doctor, got it about right.
It is pretty basic – and is in many elementary books and courses. There is no excuse for those involved in legislating transport and emissions to not know something so basic.
Here is a definition from a once popular general encyclopaedia (Pears);
Commonest of the oxides of carbon. It is formed when carbon and its compounds are burnt with abundant supply of air, and when carbon compounds are are oxidised in the respiration process of animals. The atmosphere contains carbon dioxide to the extent of about 3 parts in 10,000;
“It is pretty basic…”
Here’s what the BBC teaches children through its “Bitesize” exam revision pages
Composition of the atmosphere
Part ofChemistryThe Earth and atmosphere
The three gases with the highest percentages in the atmosphere are all elements:
78% nitrogen, N₂
21% oxygen, O₂
0.9% argon, Ar
These three gases make up 99.9% of the atmosphere.
The remaining gases are found in much smaller proportions. These include carbon dioxide and water vapour.
Most fuels contain carbon. When they are burned, carbon dioxide is produced. Human activities – like burning fossil fuels – over the past 200 years have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thickening the earth’s layer of greenhouse gases. As a result, the earth has been getting hotter. This is known as global warming.
Not scientific in the least. It’s indoctrination
that’s BBC for you – I always understood water vapour to average at 2%
It’s supposedly curriculum compliant.
That’s the worry.
The UK curriculum is set by the Dept of Education. The Exam Boards set the exams according to the curriculum.The teachers then have to teach to the curriculum so that their pupils can pass their exams and go on to Uni etc.
And so the story repeats itself, even if some teachers say I’m going to tell you some things but you have to forget them for your exams.
Water Vapor in the atmosphere is a bit tricky because of the “water cycle”.
Thus, the amount of water in the air is constantly changing. The lower troposphere might contain about 4% water vapor (H2O) in areas near the tropics, while the poles contain only trace amounts. The concentration of water vapor decreases drastically with altitude.
An answer to the question about the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is – it varies. Many may agree that 2% to 3% is common, 4% is near the upper percentage.
Sounds like an argument that it’s easiest to just use a global average to represent something with different values at different times and places?
Thickening the layer? Who writes this crap, John Kerry?
To properly communicate this to the general public, we need to put this into terms that anyone can readily understand.
For instance, the Duke basketball arena holds just under 10,000 fans. 3 parts in 10,000 means that everyone in the stadium is wearing a Duke basketball jersey, except for three or four people wearing the jersey of the opposing team.
Good point. Im sure many fall silent once they comprehend that. Some will call you a denier as it questions their whole belief in their deity
Many people are perplexed if they learn that their eyes are not like cameras producing images on a screen. What you ‘see’ is a manufactured image that is comprised of what is in front of you, processed by your brain’s memory and biases.
Likewise, when you process information, it does not reach your conscious mind until it is processed and molded by what you ‘know’. Sadly, we have a population that doesn’t know enough to process much of the earth’s many chaotic goings on. What they are left with is processing by emotion, which easily fills the gaping inadequacies of their minds.
But not me!
The questions I have always scored with are:
1 – “What is the CORRECT level of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
This usually stumps most ‘climate experts’. The quick-thinking ones fall back on “the pre-industrial level”, which is claimed to be about 280ppm. If you get this answer, follow up with:
2 – “How are you going to deal with a drop in agricultural yield of 33%-50%?”
Which is usually the cincher. You can also throw in that at about 150ppm we don’t need to worry any more, because all of the plants, and as a result all of the higher life-forms, including ourselves, will be dead…
What is the CORRECT level of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
I’d say around 800ppm
The plants applaud you for that answer…
or maybe a bit more.
“What is the CORRECT level of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
Similar to “What is the correct temperature for earth?”
I never seem to get any answers to either.
400 ppm sounds like a much greater figure than 0.04%.
For those who are really bad at math, which means at least 97% of believers in human-induced climate catastrophe due to our pittance of CO2 emissions.
I get incredible deja-vu seeing this – have we not already covered it?
Or is it that guy in the centre, where have we seen him before
The notable thing there is that none of them had a clue – just what planet do they inhabit?
Something that’s coming to bug me is to do with the observed CO2 increases and the supposed amount of fossils that have been burned to achieve that.
The figures are just Too Perfect
i.e. If you go look at ‘world annual energy consumption’ and also the coal/gas/oil mix that went into that AND the amount of CO2 each type-of-fossil produces it’s quite amazing how well they tally.
Play the game – how exactly does anybody know, to within a few 1,000 tonnes,
Go check it, work the numbers backwards and it really is quite amazing how well the supposed CO2 emissions match the consumption match the amount in the atmosphere.
It’s almost like the entire Biosphere didn’t exist or is perfectly frozen/paralysed.
Nothing in this world is ever that perfect – as these muppets demonstrate.
Somebody is adjusting the data – they have got to be.
There is an irony in the numbers:
UNEP (UN Environmental Programme) states that:
“Ireland is one of the countries with the highest per capita GHG emissions”
Then it tell us that Ireland contributes 0.1% as a precentage of global GHG.
But they do not tell us that between now and 2030 the new coal power generators in China, India and the Far East will produces at least 100 times that amount of CO2.
Locally our politicians and the climate activists tell us that if we achieve net zero by that year that we are somehow going to save the world. Do these people never listen to themselves and their hogwash?
Well Ireland’s population is about 5m or 0.06% of the world’s population. That’s even higher than Co2 as a percentage of the atmosphere so obviously if you achieve net zero in time you will save the world! 🙂
This is exactly correct. It is practically impossible to sum up self declared industry reports and gain any meaningful number. Any basic intuition can alert us to this fact.
They must work backwards from Keeling curve, using a myriad of assumptions, and “make it work”.
The consequence, therefore, is if there are ‘natural’ CO2 drivers related to temperature and other factors, any downward blip will need to be counted as policy success. It is an ideal solution. The reverse, however, is that if a trend continues in spite of $trillions spent they’ll be scratching their heads.
The solution, therefore, is that “climate science” is done by various disparate groups so each can claim some sort of ignorance. Like a comic with each character pointing a finger at another. The interworkings are mostly disconnected, siloed. it is the academic “departmental” design.
The CO2 counters are not the temperature counters. The Radiative Forcing MIP counters are not the ECS counters. The “shared socioeconomic pathway” counters are neither Radiative Forcing MIP counters nor ECS MIP counters, nor are they the temperature counters. PS – the “climate impact” counters are none of the above.
It is a tangled web with no discernible beginning or end. It allows for endless finger pointing.
For instance, the C MIP6 project “climate modeling”, which has been an overall failure, is accusing the RF MIP folks of phony inputs. Something about “biomass burning” went askew in the prescribed forcing inputs that each CMIP member is required to use for admission. Who really knows?
C MIP6 members “tuned” to RF MIP prescribed forcings. Who is to blame?
Wacky things are now occurring such as running version 6 C MIP products using version 5 RF MIP as input.
Mixing and matching, and backwards engineering. Striving for something that is convincing and persuasive.
Each unit is but a single cog in the machine. Will anyone have the wherewithal to stand back, take a look at the big picture, and notice the whole bloody thing is dying from 1000 cuts?
Let’s just go back to the basic question:
What is a “coupled non-linear chaotic system”
Do you recall what Michael Crichton said about SETI and the probability 9f intelligent life in the universe? He correctly noted the numbers are just made up. Nobody knows how many stars have planets, how many of those planets are in the biozone, etc., etc. The numbers are just made up.
CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 atmospheric molecules, man is responsible for 1 out of every 10,000 molecules at most. CO2 absorbs 15-micron LWIR which is consistent with the energy emitted by a black body of -80 C. Anyone that thinks that marginally increasing the kinetic energy of 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can materially impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 molecules simply needs their heads examined. In science one looks at the marginal impact, and the marginal impact of increasing CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is truly negligible and decreases on a log scale.
You would think that these people, who have a tremendous impact on our economy and society, would have just a casual interest in basic science…..grade school science at that. Does it not strike them that the atmosphere is 99% Nitrogen and Oxygen?….not much room for all of the other trace gases.
How much CO2 is in the atmosphere? Just a trace. 99% of our atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen. 96% of that 1% is Argon. With 99.96% of the atmosphere accounted for there is 0.04% left. Most of that is H2O as water vapor. Then CO2 at about 350 to 400 parts per million. 350/1000000 = 35 molecules for every 100,000 of other gasses.
The implication in asking the question is to raise the question — Just how much could raising the number from 35 to 40 molecules in 100,000 change things. The implied answer is: Not much.
Lowering to less than 25 molecules per 100,000 plants begin to starve, so small amounts of reduction can severely affect life itself. Increasing CO2 “greens” the Earth: Let’s go green.
I recall a correlation to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is to take
fuel tank truck of say 8000 gallons.
Then figure out how much red dye would you have to add to said truckload
of fuel to equal the amount CO2 in the atmosphere? Then how much of said dye
would be equal to the amount of CO2 human activities? I recall its would be measured
I do not understand why we give such people the power to control us to such a degree, it should not be within their control, energy policy that is.
I see what you did there.
This reminds me of the “one is too many” argument used by the anti-gun left. One shooting is “too many”, therefore for the sake of saving even one life we in the United States must severely restrict firearms for the other 329,999,000 Americans who don’t go on killing sprees.
The argument from the Green whackos is that even 1ppm is too much, even if the impact of such an infinitesimally small amount is nothing. Ditto with a millimeter of sea level rise. You can’t see it, will never notice it, but golly, we need to upend capitalism to stop it.
Just for your information…
The current Mauna Loa CO2 sensor indicates 421 ppm CO2. That makes our atmosphere 0.04% CO2.
In short: If people are making decisions based on CO2 emissions, they should have a measure of what success looks like. If they don’t have the interest in knowing about what they are controlling, while at the same time forcing the rest of society to pay for precise levels of CO2 released, then they need to be made to look like the shills that they are.
Now don’t get me going on the oxymoronic use of the word “green”. My god is there anything on the left that is based on reason that can be communicated without changing words to mean the opposite?
I really had no idea our elected leaders were so naive.
I ask the same question (mostly to the younger generation), but I help them a bit and give them the answer which is « four ». Then I ask four what? Forty percent, four percent? Nobody seems to know that it is 400ppm.
It’s amazing that these four so-called “experts” estimated the CO2 content of the atmosphere at between 5% and 8%, all of which are more than 100 times the actual concentration.
If they over-estimate the supposed “cause” of global warming by a factor of over 100, of course they will over-estimate its effects in their own minds.
About the only place where air contains 5% CO2 is inside an anti-COVID mask, which is one reason why such masks do more harm than good.
The members of the panel are the builders of our roads and bridges. In their testimony they walk the line between gratitude for the spending of the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act” and its misguided dictates and subsidies. The concerns that they express are an indictment of Biden’s crazy manipulations: inflation of goods, union favoritism, impositions to build / buy America even though domestic suppliers have been put out of business (ESG mandates), supply chain disruptions, workforce availablilty (ESG), and federal over-regulation. They are not politicians or policy makers but leaders of industry.
Representative La Port is preaching to the choir about CO2 in the atmosphere. They don’t know the statistic because it is not important to them. I would rather hear how La Port plans to mitigate the perverse incentives of IIJA to make these peoples’ jobs easier and more straightforward. Biden administration’s accomplishments wrt promised infrastructure are minuscule.
I wonder if LaMalfa could answer the response- why does it matter?
Like some congressman once said, “My mind is made up. Don’t try to confuse me with the facts.”
Most people don’t know that CO2 is 0.04 % of the atmosphere, especially politicians. Nonetheless, there is great clamor among the political group and various activists to reduce CO2 emissions. Well, to what level? Nobody is saying. To reduce CO2 from 0.04 % to say 0.03% of the atmosphere, 55,000,000,000 metric tons of CO2 would have to be removed. But why would we do this? Plants would die at somewhere between 0.015% and 0.020%. A few reports on the effect of CO2 on plant life suggest that plants thrive best between 0.12 % and 0.15 %. In other words, we live in a CO2 starved world.
Re: Plants would die somewhere between 150 ppm and 200 ppm
I have read that during the last glacial maximum – about 20,000 years ago – CO2 dropped to 175 ppm.
I am not sure how they measured that. Do we have ice cores that old? Maybe wood or plant life from that era?
Regardless, we NEVER want to experiment with how LOW we can go before causing a global catastrophe.
Most current Hawaii data is 416 to 422 Parts Per Million. The measurement fluctuates between winter and summer due to agriculture and natural plant and tree growth and ocean temperature.
Expressed as a percentage: 0.0416% to 0.0422%
Verbally – rounded down, four one hundredths of one percent.