Good news

Merkel Furious With Trump After "Unprecedented" G-7 Failure To Reach Consensus On Climate Change/

Good for Trump. I suppose that Merkel is also furious with Trump at his refusal to follow her policy of admitting "refugees."

#1 Gringo on 2017-05-28 13:17 (Reply)

At 6:15 in the video, the chart shows the last 11,000 years ending in 1855. If we add current instrumental temperature data, it shows that current temperatures have risen rapidly to be higher than at any time in the last 11,000 years. In other words, higher than at any time since humans started to settle into communities. Furthermore, due to continued greenhouse gas emissions, it is expected temperatures will continue to rise.

QUOTE:

Bill Whittle: Whose factories and auto emissions got CO2 to 2 1/2 times current levels 80 million years ago. And how did CO2 levels go from a Cambrian high of 7000 ppm to a Quaternary low of about 180 ppm?

What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!

Anyway, the primary source of CO2 over geological time periods is emissions from the interior of the Earth. This is counterbalanced by the removal of CO2 through weathering of siliceous rocks. These mechanisms are generally very slow, however, compared to the rate of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

#2 Zachriel on 2017-05-28 14:22 (Reply)

I'm always interested to read you guys' take on global warming/climate change - and I ask that you not let the sarcasm that follows dissuade you from responding. You do a great job of telling us what's wrong and how the skeptics are - wrong doesn't seem like a strong enough word (in addition to my reluctance to use the same word twice in a sentence), perhaps mendacious is better...it is - mendacious. How about taking a few moments here and tell us what you think we, as a global community, should do? How "unpleasant" do the lives of a large number of people need to get - within say, 20 years - to stave off the apocalypse? A complete ban on the use of fossil fuels in Europe and North America for electricity generation, or just a one to one ratio (for every kilowatt hour generated by fossil fuel, a kilowatt hour generated by some renewable source - except for hydroelectric generation, because dams have to be next on the list of things removed, or nuclear because of Fukushima/Three Mile Island)? People can only drive their personally owned vehicles every other week? Give us your Christmas/Hanukkah/Ramadan/Festivus list Zach. What do you want to see under that tree in the morning?

#2.1 BornSouthern on 2017-05-28 16:02 (Reply)

BornSouthern: A complete ban on the use of fossil fuels in Europe and North America for electricity generation

That would be exactly the wrong policy. Responding to anthropogenic climate change will require continued economic growth and technological innovation, especially as the developing world industrializes. Fossil fuels will continue to be important for the near term. The key is that mitigation sooner is less expensive than mitigation later, and will result in less permanent damage to the environment.

It's important to note that the effects of greenhouse gases on climate are delayed due to the capacitance of the climate system (primarily the hydrosphere and cryosphere), so even if people stopped emitting today, the Earth would continue to warm for some time.

Fixed infrastructure is replaced every few decades, so it's a matter of implementing newer technology as it becomes available rather than waiting until the problem is critical.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-28 16:19 (Reply)

Regarding the hydrosphere: Global Ocean Heat Content

#2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-28 16:30 (Reply)

It's always good science to splice paleo-proxy estimates to current instrument temperature data and make such bold pronouncements about how temperatures have never risen so rapidly in 11,000 years.
Michael Mann tried to do it and got shot down for his dishonesty.

#2.2 drowningpuppies on 2017-05-28 16:32 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: It's always good science to splice paleo-proxy estimates to current instrument temperature data and make such bold pronouncements about how temperatures have never risen so rapidly in 11,000 years.

It was Bill Whittle who introduced proxy estimates. (What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!) If you ignore the instrumental data, then you would not realize that current Greenland upland temperatures are higher today than at any time in the last 11,000 years.

drowningpuppies: Michael Mann tried to do it and got shot down for his dishonesty.

Michael Mann's findings have been upheld repeatedly by independent analyses and newer studies, including the National Research Council Report which found "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries".

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-28 16:39 (Reply)

Nice try. No credible scientist supports Mann's Hickey Stick Theory.
Even the IPCC no longer refers to that phony finding.

#2.2.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-05-28 17:07 (Reply)

Yes, "Michael Mann's friends, AND HIS MOM, said his data was ok."

Zachriel just can't stop her repeated logical fallacies. She should find a hobby.

#2.2.1.1.1 DrTorch on 2017-05-28 23:34 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: No credible scientist supports Mann's Hickey Stick Theory.

We just cited the National Research Council.

For something more recent, see PAGES 2k Consortium, Continental-scale temperature variability during
the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2013. The study included 78 researchers from around the world. They based their findings on over 500 climate archives. Here is what they found.

#2.2.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2017-05-29 10:04 (Reply)

Zzzzz: We just cited the National Research Council.

Oh my, citing a group who cited a bunch of Climategaters who used the same misleading and dishonest methodology used by Mann to come to the same dishonest conclusion.
Even McKittrick and McIntyre stated with Mann's dishonest methodology ANY data points used would create a "hockey stick" graph!
Try again, kiddies, and stop being so dishonest.

#2.2.1.1.2.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-05-29 14:22 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: Oh my, citing a group who cited a bunch of Climategaters who used the same misleading and dishonest methodology used by Mann to come to the same dishonest conclusion.

Um, you said, "No credible scientist supports Mann's Hockey Stick Theory." The National Research Council is the research arm of the National Academies of Sciences. They could certainly be wrong, but your claim that they are not credible scientists is simply false. We also cited the PAGES 2k Consortium, which has been studying the history of global climate change since 1991. They completed the most comprehensive review of the evidence in 2013.

drowningpuppies: Even McKittrick and McIntyre stated with Mann's dishonest methodology ANY data points used would create a "hockey stick" graph!

Multiple independent studies have confirmed Mann's basic findings. The data is publicly available, and simply saying "Is not" won't make that data disappear.

#2.2.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-29 14:45 (Reply)

To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world. According to the `falsifiability' principle of science, substantial physical evidence that contradicts a theory is sufficient to `falsify' that theory.

The `Hockey Stick':
A New Low in Climate Science

https://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

#2.2.1.1.2.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-05-29 16:35 (Reply)

QUOTE:

To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world. According to the `falsifiability' principle of science, substantial physical evidence that contradicts a theory is sufficient to `falsify' that theory.

Heh. The Hockey Stick is not a theory, but a simplified visual of a large number of observations.

QUOTE:

1) If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?

Current warming is not the issue, but projected warming due to continued emissions of greenhouse gases.

QUOTE:

2) If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth?

No. As the chart of solar irradiance indicates, solar variation helps explain warming in the first half of the 20th century, but does not explain warming since then.

QUOTE:

To that end, 'exhibits' of physical evidence are presented below to prove that not only is the `Hockey Stick' false, but that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were not only very real - but also global in extent.

As for proxies, please see PAGES 2k Consortium, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2013. They studied over 500 climate archives to help distinguish regional from global trends.

#2.2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-30 09:05 (Reply)

I have no doubt that "climate change" is a sham. I have no doubt that there are climate cycles and there always will be. What the Paris talks and all the sham has been about is not really mentioned by the freak media. What this agreement is primarily intended to do is cut down on pollution by large corporations. Hey--I am absolutely in support of that--what's wrong with just saying you love smog and filthy rivers and polluted estuaries. Aren't you proud of that part of a "free economic policy"? You see--"climate change" is one of those discussions that is not grounded in truth or in true intention. Thus we cannot have a discussion about the problems we are really trying to resolve. Deal with facts and we all come out winners! Deal with liberal cowardice and confusion, or conservative refusal to acknowledge some realities and we all come out losers!

#3 another one on 2017-05-28 14:54 (Reply)

Contrarian position: I believe that Global Warming is real, and I love it.

I grew up in Massachusetts in the 70's learning all about the Coming Ice Age (to be fair, there was a cooling trend from 1940 - 1976 so the concerns were data-based). If we were heading into another ice age the human race would be dying by the millions.

A little extra heat and rain? I love it! Bring it on. So with the increased temperatures, we will have a bit more flooding: so what? We can deal with flooding. Still beats an ice age.

/sorrynotsorry/

#4 JM01 on 2017-05-28 15:43 (Reply)

JM01: I grew up in Massachusetts in the 70's learning all about the Coming Ice Age (to be fair, there was a cooling trend from 1940 - 1976 so the concerns were data-based).

There was never any scientific consensus about global cooling. Rather, there are two countervailing anthropogenic trends; particulate pollution, which cools the surface; and greenhouse gases, which warm the surface. It became clear early on that greenhouse gases would predominate over the long run. The developed world took action to limit particulate pollution, in any case.

#4.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-28 16:24 (Reply)

Of course there was never any "scientific consensus" on global cooling, any "solutions" to it would not result in economic or political "redistribution."

#4.1.1 mudbug on 2017-05-28 22:01 (Reply)

"There was never any 'scientific consensus" - well there was great deal of organized propaganda about how we were about to enter the new ice age: the polar ice cap would split, the new water up there would rise and make many snowflakes, and said snowflakes would all come down to form glaciers which would march south. That was the received word in the late '60s and '70s. Didn't hear hear many dissenters objecting to this theory, and was rather in the loop for these studies in those days.

Let's face it: climate change has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future. That's what climate does. And if Mother Nature is PMS-ing, watch out: what she decides to throw out into the atmosphere dwarfs mankind's best efforts. What we are hearing from the anthropomorphic climate change advocates is a thrust for a global strategy, an overreaching global government with the power to demand that we peons shrink back from our modest homes to even most modest (and really miserable) small comfortless flats, while our "superiors and betters" continue to live lives which exceed the carbon footprints of a small village.

That's not to say mankind should not try to conserve. Our family has always tried to "walk gently this good earth". But that's part of Christian and conservative heritage, our acceptance of being good stewards of what we have been given.

#4.1.2 Frances on 2017-05-29 00:59 (Reply)

Frances: well there was great deal of organized propaganda about how we were about to enter the new ice age: the polar ice cap would split

No. There were a few scientists who got ahead of the data, and a press that enjoys sensational reports.

Frances: Didn't hear hear many dissenters objecting to this theory, and was rather in the loop for these studies in those days.

What loop was that?

As early as 1970, an interdisciplinary study, "Man's Impact On The Global Environment", found warming to be of concern, but not cooling.

In 1971, Stephen Schneider published a flawed paper which exaggerated the effects of aerosols and minimized the effects of CO2. This formed the basis of the media blitz concerning global cooling. These errors were quickly pointed out by other scientists, and Schneider admitted to the errors. In 1975, Schneider then tested the effects of aerosols by studying volcanic emissions of dust. This gave a reasonable match to the historical record, and indicated that CO2 would dominate after 1980.

#4.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-29 10:21 (Reply)

CO2 doesn't dominate in any model.

So much for your knowledge of climate science.

And the exaggerated cooling effect of atmospheric particles was used to explain why all of the current climate models are wrong when compared to actual measurements, even into the 2000s.

Cherry-picking the data you like is explicitly scientific fraud. Yet you can't make your point w/o doing exactly that.

#4.1.2.1.1 DrTorch on 2017-05-29 10:46 (Reply)

DrTorch: CO2 doesn't dominate in any model.

You may want to explain your comment more fully. CO2 forcing is considered by the majority of climate scientists to be the primary contributor to global warming.

QUOTE:

Climate Change Evidence & Causes, An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences:

Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.

Since the mid-1800s, scientists have known that CO2 is one of the main greenhouse gases of importance to Earth’s energy balance. Direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere and in air trapped in ice show that atmospheric CO2 increased by about 40% from 1800 to 2012. Measurements of different forms of carbon reveal that this increase is due to human activities. Other greenhouse gases (notably methane and nitrous oxide) are also increasing as a consequence of human activities. The observed global surface temperature rise since 1900 is consistent with detailed calculations of the impacts of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 (and other human-induced changes) on Earth’s energy balance.

#4.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-29 11:04 (Reply)

What number of scientists constitutes a majority? What determines who should be called a climate scientist? Is the science "settled" on either count?

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2017-05-29 14:27 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: What number of scientists constitutes a majority?

A majority is defined as more than half, though in this case, there is a broad consensus within the field of climate science.

indyjonesouthere: What determines who should be called a climate scientist?

Valid scientific fields overlap with other fields, providing confidence based on a consilience of evidence. Climatology overlaps with many other fields of science, and there are a variety of specialties within climatology. In particular, the evidence in climatology is provided by everything from expeditions to the polar regions to historical methods to satellite remote telemetry.

indyjonesouthere: Is the science "settled" on either count?

Nothing is truly ever settled in science; however, "in science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'."

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-29 14:55 (Reply)

A number...give me a number. How many climate scientists are there. If you do not know then how do you call that a majority? Who has vetted what is a climate scientist, or is that definition something pulled out of the political ether when a politically correct scientist so chooses?

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2017-05-29 17:16 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Who has vetted what is a climate scientist, or is that definition something pulled out of the political ether when a politically correct scientist so chooses?

A climate scientist is someone who does scientific research into climate, then publishes those results for other scientists to review. You don't have to have to wear a white smock, if that is what you mean.

indyjonesouthere: A number...give me a number. How many climate scientists are there.

One doesn't have to count to determine a proportion. For instance, it's easy to show that two parts hydrogen gas and one part oxygen gas comprise water without having to know how many molecules are in a given volume.

In this case, we can determine proportions from a representative sample. One way is to look at published scientific papers on climate science. There are very few that call into question the fundamentals of greenhouse warming. Even then, they usually only concern tangential issues, or have been addressed by other researchers. To be fair, though, it only takes one — if it is supported by the evidence. It would be hard to overturn the fundamentals of greenhouse warming, as it is based on fundamental physics.

What is an open issue is what is called climate sensitivity. A doubling of CO2 warms the surface by about 1°C. A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, which amplifies the warming. Other positive feedbacks to reach equilibrium include melting ice, which decreases the Earth's albedo. A variety of measures of climate sensitivity, from studies of volcanic eruptions to Earth's energy budget to historical evidence put climate sensitivity at about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-30 09:23 (Reply)

Your climate change stories are almost as good as your Russian hacker stories. Have they been properly vetted by the DNC?

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2017-05-30 10:36 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Your climate change stories are almost as good as your Russian hacker stories.

We responded directly to your questions. We even suggested an easy avenue for you to respond: It only takes one scientific paper to refute anthropogenic global warming — if it is supported by the evidence.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-30 11:24 (Reply)

So-called 'climate change' is a steaming pile of Marxist bullshlt designed to redistribute money:

'Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."

Mad as they are, Edenhofer's comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement's dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit."

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/un-official-admits-global-warming-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism

Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda
https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/

Need Proof Communists Are Behind Global Warming Hype? Here It is…
http://www.epaabuse.com/16675/news/need-proof-communists-behind-global-warming-hype/

‘People’s Climate March’ Backed By Communist, Socialist Parties
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/11/peoples-climate-march-backed-by-communist-socialist-parties/

Climate Change: The Greatest-Ever Conspiracy Against The Taxpayer
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/28/climate-change-the-biggest-conspiracy-against-the-taxpayer-in-history/

#5 ahem on 2017-05-28 18:43 (Reply)

ahem: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

That's right. The problem of climate is quite different from previous environmental problems.

ahem: "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

The wealth to which Edenhofer refers is the right to dump into the atmosphere. More particularly, it has to do with a carbon cap-and-trade mechanism. Edenhofer suggests it should be based on population, meaning those in the developing world would end up with a large reserve of carbon credits, which they could then sell to the developed nations.

A carbon tax based on point of production would seem to be the more elegant solution, but each has advantages.

#5.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-29 10:27 (Reply)

WELL DONE ahem!

#6 another one on 2017-05-28 18:47 (Reply)

A rise of 0.3C? By the end of this century?
We're DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111!!!!
The HORROR!! The horror.....

#7 Sam L. on 2017-05-28 22:35 (Reply)

Zachriel:

No one is 'dumping' anything into the atmosphere, you blighted communist moron. It's fluctuations in the sun's energy:

20 New Science Papers Find Climate is Driven by Solar Changes

http://principia-scientific.org/20-new-science-papers-find-climate-driven-solar-changes/

And there's nothing 'elegant' aboout covert political oppression. Obviously, you're too young to realize you've been brainwashed into believing in totalitarianism.

Jerk.

And, by the way, your reading comprehension is nil.

#8 ahem on 2017-05-29 10:37 (Reply)

ahem: No one is 'dumping' anything into the atmosphere, you blighted communist moron.

We know humans are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

ahem: Science Papers Find Climate is Driven by Solar Changes

What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?! There are many causes of climate change, including solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts. However, changes in solar irradiance does not explain the current warming trend.

#8.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-29 10:53 (Reply)

re Merkel Furious With Trump After "Unprecedented" G-7 Failure To Reach Consensus On Climate Change
'It's about time somebody, like the US, calls "bullshit" on the climate scam. "

Yes indeed. Trump upset their apple cart which made the trip a success in my view.

#9 feeblemind on 2017-05-29 14:59 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Sunday, May 28. 2017