https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1848359716180869290
Let’s do this again. . .
Here are 10 fundamental questions that climate pant-soilers never answer.
➊ You claim that the Earth is overheating. That it’s “too hot.” So, what is the correct global mean surface temperature (GMST) for life on Earth and why? 🌡️
Please provide a numerical answer. Use units and round it to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius. Then, explain why that value is ideal and cite evidence to justify your answer.
➋ What is the correct atmospheric CO₂ level for life on Earth?
What is best to optimize our agricultural productivity? 🌽
What CO₂ level will make da weatha less scary? 🌪️
Give your answer as an exact value as a mole fraction or volume percentage, and then explain why that value is ideal.
➌ What exactly makes CO₂ “pollution”?
The EPA considers CO₂ to be a pollutant, legally speaking, under the Clean Air Act, and their scientific justification is simply that, it “…𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑒.”
That’s pretty ambiguous.
Because by that measure, water vapor should also be classified as a “pollutant” because it’s also a “greenhouse gas” (GHG) — it’s also the most abundant and potent GHG; it absorbs a wider spectrum of IR wavelengths than CO₂. 🌈
So, what actually makes CO₂ pollution?
➍ Why are temperature departures from 1850-1900 climate conditions deemed as the human welfare control knob given that the overall human condition has never been better than it is today? How is was climate during the end of the Little Ice Age — the coldest period in the last 10,000-years — preferable to today’s? On what account was the weather more benign? By what measure? Be specific. Tell me how the climate was supposedly less dangerous in the 17-19th centuries.
➎ The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that President Biden signed into law in 2022 was popularized as the “biggest climate bill in history,” but ever since the bill was signed, climate alarmists insist climate change has only gotten worse.
Why are we not seeing the bill work its magic? 🎩 🪄
🔗https://axios.com/2024/07/21/biden-legacy-election-2024
➏ If we spend $75 trillion to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will it reduce the GMST by the end of the century? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your calculations.
What does the perfect climate look like? How will we know when we get there? By what measure?
➐ The estimated cost of net zero by the year 2050 in the U.S. is $75 trillion ($3 trillion per year), according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. 💰
🔗https://politico.com/news/2024/07/27/yellen-amazon-climate-change-00171522
That’s a hefty price tag. 🏷️
And with ~260 million adult taxpayers, it would cost each of us $288,461.54 to get to “net zero emissions” by the target date. That’s 3-6-years’ worth of peoples’ salaries.
Are you willing to shell out that money, or do you just expect that everyone else will foot the bill for you? 🤔
Secondly, if you don’t know the answer to question six, then are we supposed to just spend that $75 trillion and see what happens? 🤨
➑ If “combating climate change” is a global concerted effort, why do China and India get a free pass to continue emitting carbon dioxide without bound?
➒ Why are you so vehemently opposed to the deployment of nuclear power? It is the safest, most sustainable “carbon-free” energy technology and without the compliance regulations, isn’t expensive when compared to solar PV and wind, which are inefficient, intermittent, costly add-ons to existing electricity generation sources.
➓ If humans are a parasite to the Earth since we are destroying it, why then are you worried that climate change could wipe us all out? Wouldn’t that be better for Earth? Why don’t you be the change you want to see and “net zero” yourself?
I guarantee not one person will give me a coherent point-by-point answer.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Green Blob does not really want to mention that it is antihuman, and desires a sort of Arcadian socialism for much fewer people, if any.
Story Tip:
Very eloquently presented analysis of the leaders and useful idiots of the green blob “like the worms around a corpse”:
I love Neil Oliver’s monologues. He is about as far removed from the mindset of the political status quo in today’s world as anyone can get, and I applaud him for it.
If Oliver isn’t careful, Starmer will have him locked up.
It’s not about the climate, and it’s not about saving the planet, it’s about something else. An objective application of the “Duck Test” [What does it look like?] will supply you with the answer.
Marxism makes people poor, sick and dead. When I see the promotion of poverty, sickness and death, I suspect Marxism.
support of Marxism, by rational people, is not really support of Marxism. It is support of power realignment.
the rational people that are supporting Marxism tenants are doing so for power realignment purposes.
people that support of Marxism as a means to bend society toward their ‘ideals’ are not rational.
They can be also irrational and power hungry assholes; but the dupes cannot be reasonably be characterized as rational.
UN and IPCC officials have clearly stated in public that it is not about the environment that it is all about transforming the political and economic order of the world.
It is also about the transfer of the many billions of funds from the rich donor countries, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, to the poor countries to help them cope with “global warming” and “climate change”. Unfortunately, most of the funds the will end up in the Swiss bank accounts of the corrupt government officials and the oligarchs.
Your point is well made but I think you overestimate the secrecy provided by a Swiss bank account. Nowadays practically the only place in the west where you can hide ill gotten booty is Delaware USA.
Delaware. I wonder how that happened.
…. yes, along with that other diagnostic test for the worms and parasites – Follow the Money.
“So now it’s not about the virus at all. It’s about following orders, doing what you’re told.” – James Cole, 12 Monkeys
Much of what is happening in the world is not really what it appears on its face. The “solution” to almost every problem is for people to have less and less freedom and for governments (and eve more so their bureaucracies) to have more and more power.
What you call the specific ideology that underlies this is somewhat secondary. It has significant aspects of Marxism and other collectivist related ideologies like fascism. It could also be compared to some sort of neo-feudalism, with a self appointed ruling class of the “elites” supported by a vast unforgiving technocratic bureaucracy. Whatever the case, it is clear that an entity is forming (or becoming exposed) that seeks to exercise total control over the vast majority of mankind. It appears that they feel close to enacting this goal, and are fully intent on completing this. If they do, we’re all in for a bad time.
A bad time and The Population Bomb will become reality.
How many 100Ks of people will actually remain to support the lifestyles of those elites?
David Rockefeller was behind the fake environmental scares of limits to growth and the population explosion that ended up with his protogée placeman in the UN, Maurice Strong, creating the IPCC to fund the bogus science of invisible climate catastrophes. He said the the elites only needed half a Billion slaves to service their needs, and the rest were pointlessly consuming the resources the elite should control. The thinking that was and is the direct driver behind Rio ’92 and Agenda 21.
The Green Blob watched Logan’s Run too many times while they were young and impressionable and haven’t gotten past the concept. So, no, there will not be one coherent answer to any of the questions above.
“It’s got electrolytes!”
— Idiocracy
It’s what plants crave!
One needs to note that Logan’s Run was a police state with a population that was heterosexually exclusive, white supremist, anti-feminist, misogynistic, extremely socialistic, anti-nature, and ageist.
The sole exception: Box.
One might be inclined to exclude The Old Man for some of that.
It also did not do justice to the book.
Maybe not, but that was more than offset by the appearance of the stunning, 23-year old beauty Jenny Agutter.
Stunning. Yes. After I saw that, I searched out and watched as many of her movies as I could.
Also Soylent Green.
I would add one more to the list: What evidence do you have that atmospheric CO2 has an effect on Earth’s temperatures?
I have posed this question to many True Believers, and never had a cogent reply.
Because the far left told them so and they are gullible, but they keep on using FF every day!
And they never demand using a solar powered boar bristle wooden toothbrush to save the earth.
Everything is solar powered if you trace it back far enough.
You’ve already had answers from a number of “experts”, e.g. –
‘How dare you!”
G. Thunberg
“The oceans are boiling”
A. Gore
“What he said”
J. Kerry
“So sue me”
M. Mann
“Denier!!!”
N. Oreskes
and so on, and so on, and so on . . .
Excellent, although I think James Hansen would be a bit miffed about the wrong attribution for the boiling oceans. Let Jim have that stinker, plenty more for Gore:
“Arctic sea ice will be gone in five years”, for example.
I am awaiting “the oceans are on fire” next. All because of 1 degree or so? Really?
“What objective, repeatable evidence … “
If you want to be treated as a fool, tell people that CO2 does nothing, or that CO2 is dangerous.
Evidence has been collected for over 127 years to support the consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more CO2 increases the greenhouse effect.
Over 99% of scientists agreed about this for the past 127 years.
Including skeptic scientists.
The tiny percentage who don’t agree are mainly indirect disagreements: Crackpot scientists who falsely claim manmade CO2 is only 3% to 5% of atmospheric CO2, so has very little effect on the climate (the correct percentage is about 33%)
It’s sad that that conservative CO2 Does Nothing fools make it very difficult to make the corrcct argument that CO2 warming is mild and beneficial, by causing warmer winters, and a greener planet.
If you don’t want to be known as a brain-washed anti-science AGW-cultist fool……
1… produce empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Answer the question, with evidence.. exactly how much warming has CO2 caused in the last 50 years?
3… show evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH data.
4… learn the fact that only 3-5% of the CO2 flux comes from human emissions and that there is no isotopic evidence of human CO2 in the atmosphere, because it over-run by increases in the natural CO2 as the planet warms.
5… Stop making stupid consensus claims devoid of any real evidence, showing you have zero understanding of science..
Go read my above reply to RG which I just posted.
ATTN: RG
Pay Attention! Shown in Fig. 7 is the IR absorption spectrum of Philadelphia city air. Integration of the spectrum determined that H20 absorbed 92% of the IR light and CO2 only 8%. Since the air sample was inner city air, it is likely the concentration of CO2 was much higher than that of a remote area such as rural country side. Fig. 7 was prepared by the Australian sherro01.
H2O is by far the major greenhouse gas and CO2 is a minor trace greenhouse gas which causes very little global warming. We don’t have to worry about this trace greenhouse gas.
Did you go to the late John Daly’s website “Still Waiting for Greenhouse” at
http://www.John-Daly.com and check out the weather station temperature data which show no global warming to ca. 2004?
Did you go to “Science of Climate Change 4 (1)” and read the review by Roy Clark, where you learn that wind is a major force for transporting H20 into the atmosphere?
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry is 422 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has only 0.839 g of CO2 and a mass of 1.29 kg. This small amount of CO2 can heat up such a large mass of air by a very small amount if at all.
I repeat so you won’t forget: There is very little CO2 in the air and we do not have worry about it.
You know that, I know that, even RG knows that..
Yet, RG still clings to the AGW mantra of CO2 causing warming.
Quite bizarre !
“When will he ever learn”
Here is how can get him to change his mind. All the funds for the the UNFCCC, the UN COP, and the IPCC are donations from all the countries. Even the poor countries donate small amounts, which they can ill afford to do so.
RG, Do you really want your tax dollars going to these organizations? I don’t. They should be shut down.
BTW: Where do you live? I live in Burnaby, BC.
Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia.
Wow! This modern internet is amazing. I compose a comment, then hit “Post Comment. It is then sent to the WUWT server in CA which is about 2,000 miles away from BC. The comment is then sent to Oz, which is ca. 5,000 mile from CA. All of this happens in the blink of an eye.
I this ask question: In your lifetime have you experienced any global warming and climate change? I just turned 80 on Aug. 1. The seasons come and go like they always have. However, starting in ca. 2,000 winters are warmer with little snow. This is probably due to UHI of Vancouver. The winds from oceans blow the heat from Vancouver into Burnaby, which is contiguous with Vancouver.
Somehow we have to show to the people and in particular to the politicians that CO2 does not cause global warming. Got any ideas?
I have probably moved around a bit too much to notice if anything changed in the weather patterns over time. NSW has distinctly different weather patterns between the coast and further inland.
Last time I was down at Cronulla, a couple of years ago, the sea level looked no different from when I mis-spent my youth surfing there 50 or so years ago, and a mate who still lives in the area and I caught up with for a few days said he hadn’t noticed much difference either.
How you get through to politicians… no idea.
RG:
Just curious: What is your opinion of statements by the IPCC? I’m just trying to clarify, if I see something published by the IPCC, is it more-or-less reliable information?
Thanks,
Vlad
Thank you for proving my point.
Thank you for proving my point.
Now try posting actual physical evidence rather than nonsense about “scientific consensus” (a contradiction in terms).
CO2 has an effect, but it is insignificant. Calculations were taken to 6 digit precision before the effects could be quantified.
The specific heat capacity of dry air (Isobaric, Cp):
% by volume
N2 78.078
O2 20.944
Ar 0.934
CO2 0.0412
other trace gasses < 0.004
1 atm (14.5 psia)
Dry air
275 K: 1.005 J/g K
300 K: 1.006 J/g K
CO2
275 K: 0.819 J/g K
300 K: 0.846 J/g K
Dry air less CO2
275 K (1.005 J/g K – 0.819 J/g K x 0.0412E-2) / (1 – 0.0412E-2) = 1.005077 J/g K
CO2 at 412 ppm affects dry air Cp by 0.0076%.
Doubling CO2 to 824 ppm changes dry air Cp to 1.004847 J/g K.
CO2 AT 824 ppm affects dry air Cp by 0.0229%.
Molar mass of air is: 28.96 g/mol.
At 275 K, 1 J raises the temperature of dry air:
000 ppm CO2: 0.994949 K per g or 0.034356 K per mol
412 ppm CO2: 0.995025 K per g or 0.034359 K per mol
824 ppm CO2: 0.995177 K per g or 0.034364 K per mol
At 300 K, 1 J raises the temperature of dry air:
000 ppm CO2: 0.993971 K per g or 0.034322 K per mol
412 ppm CO2: 0.994036 K per g or 0.034324 K per mol
824 ppm CO2: 0.994166 K per g or 0.034329 K per mol
The GHE point is right, just not the rest, but that point is well made.
CO2 GHE is measured from space and the surface by well reported spectral intensity radiometers. But it’s strongly controlled in natural reality, so has almost no effect on global average surface temperatures. That is another, more fundamental, fact we can measure be true. Denying the natural reality we measure about the effect of CO2 detracts from the other larger reality of how small that effect is. An own goal.
Story tip?
So denying what we measure with the battery of sophisticated instruments now recording otherwise is daft. What matters is the size of the effect. In reality so small it has almost no measurable effect on Earth’s global average surface temperature, while the larger effect of lower concentrations of CO2 have created an atmosphere that delivers the benevolent climate we enjoy today. That GHE effect on temperature is now well saturated, logarithmically decreasing with concentration, as is also well agreed and measured. While its unsaturated benefits are measured to increase at a much greater rate.
So a given change in CO2 concentration will have an even smaller effect on temperature. Because its small radiative effect is immediately rebalanced by a strong negative radiative feedback control ,driven by the natural responses of evaporative>radiative and S-B direct radiative feedbacks – large amounts of cooling energy loss to space as the surface warms, in the order of 10W/m^2K net negative feedback, so 0.2deg surface warming can rebalance 2W/m^2 of GHE, or any other radiative perturbation to the Earth energy balance.
It’s well explained and quantified in the second part of this paper, the first is a factual deconstruction of models and their science fiction methods and fake language created to make the guesses of modellers appear “scientific”, and be used to program other equally dodgy economic models:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4950769
The Balance of the Earth: An Empirical Quantification of Earth’s Energy Balance
Oh, and all the measurable, hence real, effects of CO2 are beneficial. Probably. Just sayin’.
PS Numbers are all in the paper. Let me know what is wrong with them if you have the formation and the time – the facts and the physics. Not what you believe but cannot support with referenced physics & observations (definitely not the guesses of models). I have spent the last year putting this together in some confidence, with LOTS of checks and 14 years studying how Earth balances itself in space, nothing comes from belief or dodgy data. But it may still be wrong in some regards. BRLC CEng, CPhys
PPS RG is hopelessly delusional regarding CO2 effects. We know CO2 levels are up 140ppm on 280ppm, about half of this is from natural causes, since people who are supposed to be experts were reminded of the tests of C-13 and C-14 proportions in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. But the effect is still tiny.
They frequently trot out the Berkeley Earth study which was picked apart piece by piece by David Middleton.
David had a small website with all the details on it but I can’t find it now. Anyone have any idea what happened to it?
I searched “David Middleton Climate Website”
Bing found: David Middleton Sustainability Conference 2002. I didn’t read any of the articles. Maybe the info you seek is there.
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation that won’t end until all natural ice melts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
This study says that around 4.6 million people die each year from cooler weather compared to around 500,000 that die each from warmer weather. Where temperature is concerned, cold weather is the big killer of humans.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
When it is cool our blood vessels constrict to preserve heat raising our blood pressure and that causes more strokes and heart attacks in the cooler months.
‘QuickStats: Average Number of Stroke* Deaths per Day, by Month and Sex — National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2021’
“In 2021, the average number of stroke deaths per day was highest in January (275 for females and 212 for males) and then declined to a monthly low in June (235 for females and 180 for males)”
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7249a7.htm
‘When Throughout the Year Is Coronary Death Most Likely to Occur?’
“Conclusions—Even in the mild climate of Los Angeles County, there are seasonal variations in the development of coronary artery death, with ˜33% more deaths occurring in December and January than in June through September.”
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.100.15.1630
story tip
nice try.
The fundamental practice of science is to ask questions, hard questions.
Mainstream media and Power elites who are in the main of lefty woke persuasion and who are advocates of eco-communism and agenda 21 world order policies are not interested in discussion, only views that support their cause. Hence they will not answer your questions for two reasons. 1 They can’t, 2 They will not admit to anything that might undermine their position which general involves a healthy income from deceiving the public through false fears.
It would be nice if you could get these questions answered by anybody as a prerequisite to their appearance in the media to talk or write about the issues.
“””I guarantee not one person will give me a coherent point-by-point answer.”””
In a rather roundabout way you have discovered the stark similarity between politicians and [mainstream, broadcast approved] climate spokespeople – some call themselves climate scientists, others call themselves climate experts etc All very authoratative people, you understand.
When what you have is no more than a belief in something – in the absence of real evidence, and relying on models… that’s what it is – there isn’t a hope in hell’s chance of coming up with a rational, coherent and meaningful answer to anything.
The best you can hope for is likely, might, could, possibly, maybe, if etc etc And then it fails to materialise…
I would argue that the very meaning of the concept of science and scientific rigour is being well and truly diluted to homeopathic levels.
One could also expect a Harris word salad.
Would you like fries with that?!
Ha ha ha ha.
Although McDonald’s fries (in Oakland, California no less) are actually OK.
She is so dumb she doesn’t even understand her own gibberish.
She is so dumb she thinks her gibberish is intelligent.
Nick Stokes is mysteriously missing from commenting in this thread so far. Did he lose his “racehorse” award?
No mystery. It was posted at midnight in my time zone.
Well now that you are up, have at it.
You are commenting now, so pick the three easiest, and have at it.
Under point #3, Chris states,
“Because by that measure, water vapor should also be classified as a “pollutant” because it’s also a “greenhouse gas” (GHG) — it’s also the most abundant and potent GHG; it absorbs a wider spectrum of IR wavelengths than CO₂.”
Good point. Especially when you consider that it is water vapor feedback that is claimed to drive the harmful part of the imagined “warming” response to emissions of CO2.
The EPA addressed public comments about this in the Federal Register in 2009:
“Direct anthropogenic emissions of water vapor, in general, have a negligible effect and are thus not considered a primary driver of human-induced climate change. EPA plans to further evaluate the issues of emissions of water that are implicated in the formation of contrails and also changes in water vapor due to local irrigation. At this time, however, the findings of the IPCC state that the total forcing from these sources is small and that the level of understanding is low.” (Emphasis mine)
Source: The Federal Register.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/federal_register-epa-hq-oar-2009-0171-dec.15-09.pdf
My take: Direct emissions of water vapor are not capable of driving “warming” or any of the overall climate metrics because the atmosphere circulates to reject just enough heat to space and just enough water vapor back to the surface as rain and snow. For the same reason – dynamic self-regulation – emissions of CO2 and other non-condensing GHGs are not capable of forcing energy to accumulate in the atmosphere or at the surface as sensible heat by the minor incremental static radiative effect. These do not add any energy to the atmosphere + land + ocean climate system.
This is why I post here at WUWT and on X about energy conversion and about the Band 16 visualizations from the geostationary satellites.
There is no climate danger from “greenhouse gases.”
More here at the Youtube channel I set up. Please take the time to read the text description at each of the short time-lapse videos.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8vhRIT-3uaLhuaIZq2FuQ
“It comes as a surprise to many, but water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. It accounts for about 60% of the greenhouse effect of the global atmosphere, far exceeding the total combined effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and other greenhouse gases.” From JPL AIRS.
If GHG theory was correct then why doesn’t the air inside a microwave get hot if you operate one empty? The water vapor should mimic what is claimed is happening in the atmosphere.
60% is an “educated guess” and has not been tested.
The air in a microwave DOES get hot
They are vented to exhaust hot air.
Countertop microwave ovens have vents on the sides, bottom, or both to keep them cool while the magnetron generates heat. Therefore, it is completely normal for your countertop microwave to emit warm air, given that it is from the vents.
RG shows he doesn’t know how a microwave works. .. Very funny ! 🙂
God you’re obtuse. Microwave ovens get hot because the food inside gets hot and warms the air.
Just out of curiosity, I switched my 850W microwave empty for 2 minutes on full power. No perceptible increase in temperature, though there was some heat from the electric current at the back.
Microwave ovens get hot because the uW EM radiation energizes H20 which has a dipole moment due to the molecular structure. The kinetic energy of the energized H20 (aka heat) heats the food and the resulting steam (with some flavoring molecules) heats the interior of the oven.
The point? The food heats from the inside out and the heat in the oven chamber is waste heat from cooking.
Personally, I can’t remember ever experiencing food heating from the inside out in a microwave. When I reheat leftovers, it’s usually the outsides that are hot and the middle that’s cold.
From what I read on it, it depends on the composition of the food.
Oversimplification? I learned that from the IPCC.
In empty microwave, there is very little H2O in the air. Operating an empty microwave will result in the destruction of the magnetron. The minimum load of water for safe operation is 50 mls, IIRC
Blimey, I didn’t know that! I won’t repeat the experiment.
Fun experiment. Put a piece of metal and turn on the radar range.
A splendid example of how radar skin effect works.
Harold there is 4-5000 ppm WV in normal atmosphere. And you can operate a microwave empty for several minutes with no harm.
But that wasn’t the point. There is 10X more WV than CO2 in air and the air isn’t warmed by the very thing that will boil water.
Radars used to be used to heat soup on flight lines in the service. The APS-20 radar in P-2V was quite powerful.
The largest feednbcak to surface temperature change is from the latent heat of water vapour in the wtare vaour emittedby warming oceans to the tropopshre. When th. it gets there and cools, the latent heat is relased as radiation, not thermal enrgy, and all that 86W/m^2 goes straight to space as radiation must, per the laws of thermodynamics, as is clearly see in tthe NASA Earth’s staaic energy balance. THis varies by 7% per degree of ST change, give or take. More negative feedback than modellers can possibly imagine, latent heat is not released as thermal energy in the Tropospher, it all leaves, cannot go back down. Check the diagram.
Excellent list of questions that have been asked independently over time. Nice to have them listed together in one place.
Our foul mouthed Marxist witchetty grub will split hairs with you-
‘She is gone’: Peta Credlin torches Lidia Thorpe following newest ‘brag’
and they wonder why 3 out of 5 decent folk voted no to their screechy Voice? What is it with these lefty womanists and their fatal attraction for bad boys? Outlaw motorcycle gangboys..Hamas …Hezbollah…
I am sure no self respecting witchetty grub wants to be associate with that Thorpe woman.
Outstanding! Thanks!
I have been asking the first two questions for over 15 years and have yet to get an answer. And that’s WITHOUT asking for anything to back it up.
Same here. I phrase it like:
“If you had a dial that would adjust temperature everywhere on the planet, would you turn it up a few degrees, turn it down a few degrees or leave it alone.”
Many people mistakenly think “leave it alone” is the pro-AGW answer. If interesting conversation ensues, “everywhere on the planet” comes in.
Personally, I want to know how I get the job to decide on the “right” temperature that includes the power “to make it so.” 🙂
Of course, some people may not agree with my Swedish genes, but I promise to keep living in New England.
In my house (mostly Irish with some German genes) I set the thermostat.
(Though when I start to feel a bit chilly, I know my lovely wife (German genes) has usurped my authority and reset it.) 😎
Sounds a lot like my house including the genetics (Irish/Dutch), except my wife is Ukrainian.
Keep holding the scammers’ feet to the fire and exposing them for the charlatans they are. Great job!!
I teach string instruments in a science class on after school hours in Ireland. During a break i picked up a science school book. Interested about what that book had to say about climate change i was confirmed in my prejudices with all the usual gaff. So far so normal.What i did NOT expect was the section about greenhouse gasses. NO mention of H2O!! I checked. Surely a science book wouldnt be as bad as that? Pretty shocking they would go that far!
What are the parameters of the natural variation of the climate? And
why does the IPCC not look at natural variation only man made
climate change?
The current IPCC charter is built on the false premise that human activities, specifically creating greenhouse gases “threatening present and future generations with potentially economic and social consequences.” Fair and balanced reporting on the climate such as cost/benefit analysis is currently verboten, outside the UN IPCC charter.
Copy/past abbreviated:
The IPCC charter established by the UN General Assembly:
6 December 1988
43/53 Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind
The General Assembly, …”Conservatism of climate as part of the common heritage of mankind.”
“Concerned that human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially economic and social consequences”.
“Noting with concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmosphere concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce (sea level rise)”.
Precursor to IPCC was chartered to understand the climate, both natural and human effects. When IPCC was formed it was quickly transition to determine the effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.
Because their charter is to look only at man-made warming. If you stack the deck before you start the game …
A valid question derived from the 10 above.
What is the exit strategy. (a) How do we know the job is done? (b) What happens afterwards?
There is no exit strategy. The only strategy is to remove more wealth from the middle class.
That’s why they want to tax the air. There is no other reason and they will not solve any imagined climate problems. ALL efforts for 40 years have failed miserably.
You are, of course, correct. As as pointed out, none of the 10 gets an answer so adding another is more akin to jousting a wind mill.
As stated in the mid-1970s by a UNEP official, “we do not know if CO2 is the cause, but it is something that can be quantified and taxed.” (or words to that effect. The document is no longer found by Google.)
Another question: from now until 2050 is another 25 years. How is the actual effect of the mitigation measures determined during that period? On what basis are the efforts adjusted every year to match the desired outcomes? And don’t bait and switch temperature for CO2 emissions.
If only ‘winning the argument’ would sway things. It never does. And there is no judge or referee. And there are various ways to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Plus, the one ‘winning’ the argument will be shunted by the others. Things only change when another elite is willing to elbow out the previous one when there is enough critical mass and general distrust about the Establishment. Then THEY will become the Establishment and do the same thing. The People will be used one way or the other. Power to the People? I think not. John Lennon was dead wrong. Although, i think ‘give peace a chance’ sounds pretty good right now.
“there are various ways to deflect from uncomfortable realities”
As demonstrated by some of the replies.
And the reason i actually went away from this platform f a while as it became a rather tedious affair with endless regurgitation of known mechanisms. I also felt some commentators were battling amongst themselves about trivialities. You can be right but that doesnt mean you win. I do like the more technical articles but i sometimes get the feeling Anthony keeps hammering the same diatribes. I used to watch the videos but switched off some time ago. I get bored easily..
Give peace a chance sounded pretty good back then, too.
We gave peace a chance. Withdrew from fighting commies in North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, ended conscription and didn’t bother to reinstate the Shah of Iran. Formed the G8 and made the Chinese Communist party the worlds #1 manufacturing exporter.
Surrender is not exactly the same as achieving peace.
Offset by the atrocious ‘imagine’ which i think is the official woke/ marxist theme now. They might as well play it before every UN meeting..
Every time an Islamist perpetrates a terrorist atrocity in Europe, some drip appears with a piano and sings John Lennon’s dirge Imagine. I loathe the song with a passion now.
A lot of disproven conclusions in that EPA document. CO2 is now higher than it has been for the past 650,000 years? CO2 has an atmospheric life of over 100 years?
Seems a new review should be ordered.
Oh, and yes, it totally ignores H20.
Question #11: Temp went down slightly from about 1940 to 1980 – while CO2 went up about 15% – what happened?
CO2 went u 7% from 1940 to 1975
The warming was very small an overwhelmed by the cooling from increasing air pollution.
The change of the GAT is te net result of MANY climate change variables, not just CO2 levels.
There is no evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH data.
You have consistently shown that ,.. by not producing any when asked.
Funny how you keep quoting UAH, yet the very man, Dr Spencer (one of them) responsible for that data agrees CO2 is causing warming. This is what he said when asked about recent warming….
“I can only speculate: Some combination of El Nino, Hunga Tonga (I’m skeptical of that), cleaner skies from less aerosol pollution, a decrease in cloudiness (measured by CERES) due to either positive cloud feedback on warming or some unknown mechanism, and increasing CO2 (which can’t explain a short-term peak, but can explain a tendency for each El Nino to be warmer than the last). And maybe some other influence we don’t know about?”
ROFLMAO.
So, simpleton, you admit you have absolutely ZERO evidence of CO2 causing warming.
“I can only speculate:” is NOT SCIENCE, it is his opinion.
Show us the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH data.
You have FAILED COMPLETELY, as you always do.
I’m admitting nothing. I’m saying the guy you continually quote doesn’t agree with you (along with pretty much every climate scientist on the planet (including skeptical ones). Then there is sad liddle bnice2000, all on his own yelling at the moon and gnashing his teeth. Kinda funny really.
Meanwhile Simple Simon dodges the post 10 fundamentals as he apparently can’t make a cogent reply to ANY of them…….
Muhahahahahahahahaha!!!
Too many to counter…. Pick one?
Which you can’t counter.. and haven’t countered.
Simple and very STUPID. !
I said “ANY OF THEM”.…..
LOL you can’t read simple comments either thus how can you understand ANY of the 10 questions posed.
No one here expected ANYONE to counter all ten of them thus your evasions are comical.
I actually think Simon= RG
You have just admitted that you are incapable of not answering the questions..
You have admitted that there is ZERO evidence of CO2 warming.. by continuing not to produce any.
Simpleton… a complete and abject FAILURE… as always.
Bnice2000 …. the lone fool on the hill.
Poor simpleton.. continues to be a complete and utter FAILURE..
By choice. !!
bnice does not continually quote Spencer. He continually refers to the UAH data. Why is something so fundamental so hard to understand for you?
It seems you read over:
“I can only speculate”
And you read over
“but can explain a tendency for each El Nino to be warmer than the last).”
Why does Dr. Spencer’s speculation matter so much?
”can explain” is nothing more than unproven speculation.
Oceanic temperature fluctuation driven by earlier (perhaps decades earlier) sun activity can equally explain increasing El Nino warming peaks.
Look at the DATA, simpleton. !
Each major El Nino has a step up. This CANNOT be caused by anything humans have done.
You argument is simplistic gibberish and totally EMPTY.
The most amazing thing about this comment is three people think it has some merit. No one and I mean no one who knows anything about climate and climate change agrees with this childish simplistic reason for the warming. It’s like saying the tide is causing sea level rise. Hint it’s not. The simple test for your looney theory is to ask this question. If El Ninos were the cause of the warming, then why have we not be warming for as long as El Nino’s have been around? Fact is we haven’t. Now get back on your hill and try again.
CO2 emissions went from about 5 gigatons in the early 40s to 20 gigatons/yr in 1980…..an increase of 4 times while temp went down slightly – what happened?
Too many points … not many people will align on all ten.
“I do!”
“Yes. You’re reading the comment section of a website that filters for that set of opinions.”
Filters?
I would revise #3 slightly.
Why are CO2 and water vapor different?
H2O absorb far more IR than CO2. Scroll up way thru the comments and read my reply to RG.
Thought I’d answer this for a laugh as I know the rabbit-hole will close in with any replies.
So I will not answer them.
The one on which ensured the Earth’s climate system was stable with incoming SW solar vs LWIR out. Absent of orbital characteristic changes as they occur over millennia anyway.
Again as above the level that provided for that stable condition – often quoted as the pre industrial 280ppm
CO2 is a pollutant in excess of its naturally occurring concentration within the carbon cycle. Not with any additions from humanity. IE It is “polluting’ nature.
As above – pre the Industrial Revolution atmospheric CO2 was bounded within the natural climate cycle. Now it’s not.
Don’t know In am English and I’ll let you fight over that – But we need to spend what is affordable to gain what is achievable.
Because China and India between them have near on 3 billion of humanity and neither country contributed to the ppm’s when they were just agrarian societies through until the 90’s at least. Plus the Chinese will do as China wants anyway as they are on a mission to supplant the good ol’ USA.
Personally I woulld like nuclear power – it’s just that it seems it would take exhorbitant sums and decades to build them. Small modular ones seem the way to go.
No one is worried that it would “wipe us all out” or that the Earth will be destroyed. It’s the consequences of rising oceans (sorry just got to as ice generally melts with warmer weather). Billions live along coasts and they will have to move – and yes of course it will take a century or so to happen. There are other things too of course (from my side – but obvs not from the echo-chamber here).
Well there you are – have fun ranting at that.
“it will take a century or so to happen”
Comedy gold
Question for other readers – I couldn’t find the Twilight Zone image where Rod Serling was saying “Imagine, if you will, a world where people believe they can change the climate by giving money to the government”. Which thread was that on ?? Literally, really just asking for a friend who I told about it.
“… we need to spend what is affordable to gain what is achievable.”
This is not an answer, it is a deflection.
Who is ‘we’?
How much did you spend last year & how much are you setting aside and willing to spend next year?
And, your “what is achievable?” is directly & inversely proportional to the number of angels that can dance on the tip of a pin … it would be easier (more honest) if you answered the later rather than dancing around the former.
Honest is Generally Easiest
(feel free to clip and paste the above to the side of your bathroom mirror as a daily personal reminder)
““… we need to spend what is affordable to gain what is achievable.””
What AB is saying is that there is NO REASON for spending anything on reducing CO2 emissions.
The world has WASTED billions of dollars so far…
… and achieved absolutely nothing but the downgrading of economies.
Reducing CO2 will “achieve” absolutely nothing expect economic degradation.
ROFLMAO.
You didn’t answer a single one of the questions.
Your comment was worse than a Kamal giggling gibberish word-salad containing absolutely nothing.
Are you surprised?! I’m not!
C3 Plants have already evolved to use 4X the amount of atmospheric CO2 and retain that ability today. C4 plants evolved much later, after the earth’s CO2 sinks evolved.
Since evolution happens constantly at all levels of the biosphere, you HAVE NO IDEA what the correct level of CO2 in the atmosphere is optimal. And neither does anyone else. We already know that submarine personnel operate and perform just fine at 10x the current atmospheric CO2 levels.
Yawn…. Zzz…… here is a fine example of a dodge to valid questions some are actually easy for a warmist/alarmist caveman to address but you are instead TERRIFIED of them.
Science is too hard for YOU Anthony; suggest you try one of the women’s publications instead for entertainment since the questions here are too difficult for leftist brains to handle, as they might catch on fire since they often rapidly go on a retreat when facing a challenge, they quickly realized is well above their ability to answer.
“Thought I’d answer this for a laugh”
Well you certainly gave us something to laugh at…. YOU ! 🙂
Slop-stick comedy at its worst.
Nonsense from an idiot.
What a preposterous statement.
So you are saying that co2 is responsible for all the sea level rise? The SL has been rising consitantly since the end of the LIA.
Regarding #7, there are 260 million adults, but that includes retirees. Generally speaking, only half the country’s population is working adults, and only 2/3 to 3/4 of those pay taxes.
Good article with good questions
“What is the correct atmospheric CO₂ level for life on Earth?”
I’d delete this question
Too easy to answer
Greenhouse owners have known for may decades that 1000 to 1500 ppm CO2 is best for C3 plants. C4 plants benefit too but not as much. Of course at 2023’s 420 ppm the current food plants support 8 billion lives, but some people do need more food.
A better question rarely asked:
Please detail who was harmed by the past 50 years of global warming, which was mainly warmer winters?
Or add the following questions
11… Please present empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
12… Please show the CO2 caused warming in the UAH data.
Too easy to answer
That depends on your overall position on this, doesn’t it?
“1000 to 1500 ppm CO2 is best for C3 plants” – which would require them to admit to a level far higher than the current 420. An honest answer would break their brains – but then, they don’t actually KNOW that answer.
Therefore I disagree – I think it IS a good question to include.
Make it 150 years or 250 years and it is marginally improved.
I mean 150 years goes back to the mid 1800s, 250 to the mid 1700s, both of which are used as benchmarks.