We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, December 18. 2018
Why the Boston Tea Party Was Such a Great Event
The Biggest Junk Science of 2018
Is abortion "medical care"?
Google isn’t the company that we should have handed the Web over to. Analysis: Microsoft adopting Chromium puts the Web in a perilous place.
Poorer Than Other Generations - Millennials are less wealthy and are lower-income than previous cohorts. Here's why.
Metropolitan Police Testing Facial-Recognition Technology In Central London
Don Boudreaux hates limits to immigration
Life as a Trump-Supporting Female in Manhattan
Wow: Christopher Steele Says He Was Hired To Help ‘Challenge The Validity Of The Outcome’ Of 2016 election
It worked. A mess ever since
Reporter who broke news of Steele dossier used to surveil ex-Trump aide calls its claims largely 'false'
New Legal Filings Reveal Hillary Camp Funneled Cash to Chris Steele to Help Her Challenge 2016 Election Results
Justice Department careerists, led by special counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, have now served notice that they are targeting the presidency of Donald J. Trump.
NYPost: If he’s ever brought low, it’s less likely to be from the pressures of his responsibilities than his cussed inability or unwillingness to make a minimal effort to conform to his role.
Minorities held in China sew clothes that can end up in US
China’s Bizarre Program to Keep Activists in Check - As part of “stability maintenance,” people the state considers troublemakers may be sent to jail—or sent on vacation.
It's a different culture
Will China Rule The World? China’s worldwide influence campaign requires a coordinated response from all segments of American society—not just politicians and policy-makers.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
re The Biggest Junk Science of 2018
It is Junk Science to deny "climate change"?
3. The Trump Administration Still Denies Climate Change. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree on policies related to climate change. It is also acceptable to critique climate models as well as some of the more outlandish, alarmist claims about global warming.What is not acceptable, however, is to deny the increasingly obvious fact that the climate is changing and humans are responsible. Yet that is exactly what the Trump Administration is doing through misrepresentation and obfuscation. In November, the administration tried to bury a damning government report outlining the potential perils and immense costs of climate change. Afterwards, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders spouted myriad mistruths when questioned about the scientific assessment. A couple weeks later, the U.S. joined with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait in refusing to endorse an IPCC report on climate change. Denial of reality on this level is tantamount to charlatanism. Science and evidence must be adhered to at the federal government if the U.S. is to prosper.
This discredits the entire piece.
feeblemind: It is Junk Science to deny "climate change"?
feeblemind: Who knew?
The vast majority of experts in the field.
Well, I don't think there's much doubt that mankind's actually affected the climate. The addition of methane from agriculture may well have stalled off an ice age.
The question then goes to whether there's an actual problem with CO2. The -additional- climatic forcing of CO2 apparently drops significantly above about 220-250 PPM. Two different views of the results...
It seems pretty clear that CO2's just about at the limit for holding atmospheric warth, and the second link simply does what it can to obfuscate that.
And the variability of that big solar furnace in the center of the solar system has absolutely nothing to do with planetary temperatures, lol...
Oh, and don't forget the amazingly accurate forecast of Al Gore.
JLawson: The question then goes to whether there's an actual problem with CO2. The -additional- climatic forcing of CO2 apparently drops significantly above about 220-250 PPM.
It drops logarithmically.
JLawson: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/ ... "The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C."
Given this, a doubling of CO2 will raise temperatures an additional 3°C.
JLawson: It seems pretty clear that CO2's just about at the limit for holding atmospheric warmth
The relationship is logarithmic, meaning each doubling of CO2 will increase surface temperature linearly.
JLawson: And the variability of that big solar furnace in the center of the solar system has absolutely nothing to do with planetary temperatures
Changes in insolation would imply that the Earth would be cooling slightly, rather than experiencing the observed rapid warming. As for Zharkova’s Predictions of a Grand Minimum, even if such an event came to pass, the expected cooling would not be sufficient to counteract anthropogenic warming, and would only temporarily mask it somewhat.
Z: Given this, a doubling of CO2 will raise temperatures an additional 3°C.
Sorry. If halving CO2 decreases temperatures by 1.5°C, then doubling CO2 will increase it by 1.5°C.
"the relationship is logarithmic..."
It's not open ended. CO2 absorbs only at a couple of narrow bands. Those are already opaque at current levels, increasing the CO2 will not alter the absorption.
Jay: It's not open ended. CO2 absorbs only at a couple of narrow bands.
Z: Given what was cited (that the relationship is logarithmic), then it follows.
The relationship is logarithmic in the ranges at issue.
If the hired Gasbot had any genuine interest in, well, the human aspects of this science it thinks it's always on about and represents with such precision, it'd engage with the expert-level input it gets here, day in and day out, month after month, decade after decade.
See, humans made science and therefore science - the running exploration of phenomenon so as to add to objective knowledge - is a strictly humanistic endeavor.
But it's a paid Gasbot and it only cares about being pedantic, arrogant, and diversionary. Day in and day out, month after month, decade after decade.
Sun - 4 years ago: [url] https://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2014/eit171/20141204/20141204_0100_eit171_1024.jpg [/url]
Sun - today: [url] https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_171/512/ [/url]
How could solar activity have ANY influence on the planet? /sarc Lol...
JLawson: How could solar activity have ANY influence on the planet?
Insolation certainly does have an influence on climate. Many climate cycles are likely due to changes in incident solar radiation. However, that does not explain the current warming trend.
However, that does not explain the current warming trend.
All around it, kiddiez...
According to former IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, anthropogenic climate change was irreversible as of 2012.
No sense in worrying then. What's done is done, according to the experts.
Drive your SUV to the steakhouse and enjoy the balmy weather.
Rusty: anthropogenic climate change was irreversible as of 2012
Some global warming is locked in, but additional emissions will cause even greater changes.
zachrielNPC: Some global warming is locked in.
Pretty dumb comment considering that both temperature and CO2 have been much, much higher in the past and the warming was never "locked in".
Rusty, I don't remember seeing you post here before. But whether you're new or whether I just didn't notice you, you are one of my favorite posters based on this exchange alone.
Keep up the fine work, sir!
It sure is. Resident Probably-Paid Gasbot, as it's strongly-resembles-artificial-intelligence is known around here among various other swipes at it's likely motive and identity, apparently sees the Earth as the product of the models supporting AGW, none of which being even close to being perfected.
At some point - assuming the profit motive is ever stripped from the AGW racket - one or more of those models are going to include the solar environment. Oops. That'll be An Inconvenient Thing to deny, won't it?
On the other hand, given that CO2 is a tiny natural trace gas with, as you note, inert properties, and given that it rises in clear response to climate, and given that among other things climate first acts on polar ice, releasing CO2 as it cyclically melts, and given that THAT set of facts has yet to rise to the level of Science! among modelers and other un-scientific warmeningists, well, don't bet on it.
On still the other other hand, un-scientific warmeningists will probably snap right back to Time magazine-like we're-all-gonna-freeze hysteria and never notice the intellectual whiplash. It's best to always have a contingency plan.
The only conclusion you can arrive at is the only thing more variable than the weather are the un-scientific warmeningists who use and abuse it for a buck.
Does this rule out AGW entirely? Funny, you'd never know if the blame thing existed for all the tap-dancing gasbotting going around.
Rusty: Pretty dumb comment considering that both temperature and CO2 have been much, much higher in the past and the warming was never "locked in".
There is a delay between an increase in greenhouse effect and the final equilibrium temperature of the Earth's surface, largely due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. Even if humans were to stop emitting greenhouse gases, global temperatures will continue to increase over the next few decades.
It's always amusing to see how easy it is to expose these shills.
Earlier you appealed to the "experts". And now you throw the IPCC Chairman under the bus when he does not support your argument.
Tonight I eat beef, drive an SUV with an 8 cylinder engine, and use more electricity than I should - all in your honor!
Rusty: And now you throw the IPCC Chairman under the bus when he does not support your argument.
How so? You didn't provide context, but some greenhouse warming is already locked in.
Short memory seems to be the norm with climate wankers.
Yo, feeble - climate change has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future. It's a matter of fact, not a matter of belief. Were this not so, I would be trying to reply to you from under about 2 km of ice. And I speak as one with a B.Sc. in Geology.
So, as you have rightly pointed out, the question is how much of the recent climate change is due to human activity. Therein lies the conundrum. The "we are killing the earth" crowd are crying doom and gloom everywhere unless we in the West repent out ways and go for taxes which will put us back to not great living standards. That such taxes will be shoveled off to third world countries to "mitigate the effect of global warning" is a scam; the reality is that most of the money will end up in off-shore accounts of the rulers of said nations.
In addition, I commend to you this article:
This gives a perspective on the relative effects of human activity vs that of other animals. And then there are volcanoes, the eruption of which will release far more CO2 than humans can even think of emitting.
"humans are responsible." Wow! Really? Got some proof of that? I mean real proof, not the usual crap the Z bot spouts.
FRP: "humans are responsible."
You might start with the basics. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
Arrhenius was debunked more than 100 years ago. He wildly overestimated CO2 forcing.
Jesus. You can't truly be this stupid can you?
Rusty: Arrhenius was debunked more than 100 years ago.
Uh, no. While his calculations have been improved, the basics have only been more strongly supported over time.
When your calculations are shown to be off by 96% that is called DEBUNKED.
Rusty: When your calculations are shown to be off by 96% that is called DEBUNKED.
Arrhenius's original 1896 calculation of climate sensitivity was 5-6°C per doubling of CO2. In 1906, his recalculation gave a climate sensitivity of 4°C. Most modern studies put climate sensitivity at 2-4°C, so Arrhenius's figures quite accurate considering he didn't have satellites to make energy measurements from space.
Actually, the most recent estimates fall between .7 and 1.6
Interesting trend, that. Keeps going down, down, down over the years.
Rusty: Actually, the most recent estimates fall between .7 and 1.6
Well, no. Most estimates are still in the range of 2-4°C per doubling of CO2. The IPCC states, "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1 °C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6 °C (medium confidence)." See also Johansson et al., Equilibrium climate sensitivity in light of observations over the warming hiatus, Nature 2015.
The 0.7°C figure is presumably from Lindzen & Choi 2011, which was rejected by PNAS. There are several problems with the paper, including that they only included the tropics in their analysis, and the unsupported claim that clouds are a forcing rather than a feedback.
So in other words the Gasbot is having the Earth follow an ancient theory that has, to date, resulted only in fantastically incomplete and thus broken climate models.
I'd say that constitutes an admission of sorts.
What airplanes for Pelosi, Feinstein, Shumer, et al?
Given that the reason we are losing a very good man as Secretary of the Interior due to the threats of multiple law suits. Ryan Zinke has made me aware of another mismatch--travel habits of the Democrats vs. those of the Republicans. Zinke who is very very tall (6'9" +/-) cannot be expected to travel in the Y class section. Most importantly when moving around the country, is your "brief" your job description is to cover thousands of acres of ground. Zinke has been harassed since taking office over the travel costs. I would like to know how Pelosi, and Feinstein travel? Does anyone have this information? How about Senator Murray or Cantwell? Please don't tell me they all fly home in y class seating. Do the conservatives have any real, genuine and skilled investigative journalists looking into this ?
From back when Pelosi was speaker:
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained new documents from the United States Air Force detailing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s repeated use of United States Air Force aircraft. According to the documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Pelosi used Air Force aircraft on 85 flights from March 2009 through June 2010. Members of Pelosi’s family were guests on at least two flights.
Among the highlights from the documents, obtained pursuant to a FOIA request filed on January 25, 2009:
Pelosi used the Air Force aircraft for a total of 85 trips, covering 206,264 miles, from March 2, 2009 through June 7, 2010. Pelosi, her guests and Air Force personnel logged a total of 428.6 hours on these flights.
Members of Pelosi’s family were guests on at least two flights. On June 20, 2009, Speaker Pelosi’s daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons joined a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to San Francisco International Air Port. That flight included $143 in on-flight expenses for food and other items. On July 2, 2010, Pelosi took her grandson on a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, which is northeast of San Francisco.
According to previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008 included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.
feeblemind: Pelosi used Air Force aircraft on 85 flights from March 2009 through June 2010.
Of course she did. As Speaker of the House, she is second in line to the presidency, after the Vice President. As such, her security is a paramount national concern. After she was no longer Speaker, she returned to using commercial aircraft.
As Peter "Dr. Pizza" Bright is a "flying spaghetti monster" denigrator of Christianity, I have no idea why you link to arse techni-con at all...
Don Boudreaux thinks the wall is a disgrace and that "poor Spanish-speaking people who wish to come here to mow our lawns and to clean our motel rooms."
In fact illegal immigration is bankrupting our country. It costs the federal government about $230 billion a year and costs the stats a similar amount. Illegals kill about 3000 people a year in the U.S. and injure hundreds of thousands not to mention rape and child sex abuse from illegals. If we kept our borders safe none of that would happen.
It is interesting that the ACA was designed to give free health care to illegals and 100% of the proposed replacements to the ACA were equally generous to illegal aliens. All of that enormous cost will be paid for by the middle class. Not the rich, not the poor, not the elite but the middle class. Yet to oppose illegal immigration is to be called bigoted and prejudice.
The illegals only want "to mow our lawns and to clean our motel rooms", he said. But what about our own "poor" stuck on welfare? Don't we have a responsibility to help them get off of the dole? Wouldn't it be better for them to mow our lawns and to clean our motel rooms than live on welfare? Why do we insist on making both problems worse. We would be better off to mow our own lawns.
Definitely, start with the basics. Keep in mind that Arrhenius believed in the aether despite the fact that the existence of the aether had been disproved by Michaelson and Morley in 1887. Arrhenius' belief in the aether lead him to confuse conductive and radiative heat transfer, viz Tyndall's theory of aethereal heat propagation. Tyndall based his heat transfer theory on his belief in luminiferous aether. This resulted in the duplication of the radiative component of heat transfer. Arrhenius justified this energy creation by arguing that selective obstruction of outgoing radiation raises temperature.
Ray: Arrhenius justified this energy creation by arguing that selective obstruction of outgoing radiation raises temperature.
It's not energy creation. Rather, the surface is warmed while the upper atmosphere is cooled. Are you arguing there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect?
Are you saying there's incontrovertible proof that Earth's climactic negative feedback is incapable of managing a minor increase - following another phenomenon influencing temperature - in a minuscule trace gas that's never been shown to have a reactive greenhouse effect?
Or are you really relying on a 100 year old theory about which models have yet to produce an accurate trend even once but which you demand indicate a system more complex than you've ever even once admitted. Gasbot?
And are you denying that you've never even once engaged any of these points as if you had any genuine interest in anything related to the subject other than to pedantically condescend for a thousand tone-deaf comments to completely realistic such counterpoints and arguments like some clattering site robot?
Is there "global warming"? Yes, of course. With the end of the little ice age in 1850 it was inevitable that there would be global warming. All quite normal and expected.
Is there AGW or man caused global warming? There is no evidence of it. Even the rather feeble CO2 connection is unproved and defies previous earth temperature vs CO2 data. As for other possibilities such as using fossil fuel the best (meaning the honest) calculations indicate that it is possible that burning fossil fuel "could" increase global warming by some fraction of 1%. But there is no evidence of it and in fact there is contrary evidence, i.e. the 30's were much warmer than today followed by the 50's and 60's which were much cooler. So what little evidence there is seems to be saying that we humans and our feeble efforts cannot change the environment and in fact we are snowballed by the natural effects that control the environment.
An important and unarguable fact is that the pro-AGW side of the argument has lied at all levels and about all facts and data concerning the AGW debate. At no time have they been honest and they continue to be dishonest.
WHY? Well look at their demands for "fixing" the problem. In all cases what the left leaning AGW advocates want is higher taxes, some form of globalist government and revocation of constitutional and civil rights.
What is really going on here is a massive conspiracy by far left radical socialist elites to "con" the citizens into willingly giving up their rights, wealth and power to an elite government not dissimilar to the UN or the EU which will rule from Brussels or perhaps Moscow. They think you are stupid (and they are about 51% right) and they think they can pull off this "sting" AND they feel under pressure to close on this soon since the global warming seems to have ended a few years back. So they are doubling down on their lies, fake studies and demands, they are desperate, they need this, they want this and they will not be denied.
This is a perfect example of the left lying about everything connected with the AGW argument. They had to change the historic data about the warm period in the 30's. Otherwise their argument for man mad global warming was unprovable. So they did and now that they did they make believe we didn't see what happened behind the curtain.
Imagine that you had a legitimate argument and proof of AGW. WHY then, would you lie and change historical data???
GoneWithTheWind: They had to change the historic data about the warm period in the 30's.
Independent analysis of the raw data supports the described trend. By the way, you are probably thinking of the contiguous U.S. surface data, which was very warm during the 1930s.
Still wrong, Gasbot: https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/AGW/Loehle/Fig2color.gif
The multiple incremental revisions of the early 20th century downward and the late 20th century upward is an established fact. Everyone who's payed attention knows it.
You are actually attempting the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" trick with a group of informed skeptics. It doesn't get much dumber than this.
Rusty: The multiple incremental revisions of the early 20th century downward and the late 20th century upward is an established fact. Everyone who's payed attention knows it.
NOAA Global Average Temperature, Raw and Adjusted. Note the adjusted data has a lower trend.
As already pointed out, independent analysis of the raw data supports the described trend. The standard process of analyzing historical temperature data is homogenization, which splices data segments caused by changes in instrumentation and instrument locations. Berkeley Earth developed a new statistical method utilizing jackknifing, which compares statistically independent sub-samples to determine consistency across the entire data-set. So we have two independent tests of the raw data reaching the same conclusion. In any case, either method is superior to saying "Is not!"
Kindly opine on the Chinese American American data you're on about, Gasbot: https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-2.png
Indeed, the whole "hockey-stick" hoax was the product of creative data homogenization. That failed to impress also.
You losers make lying an art-form.
Rusty: Indeed, the whole "hockey-stick" hoax was the product of creative data homogenization.
You are conflating two data-sets. We were discussing the instrumental record, while the hockey-stick also included historical data. In any case, the instrumental record continues to support the trend, with the five warmest years having occurred since 2010, the ten warmest years since 1998, and the twenty warmest years since 1995.
More conflicting data, Gasbot: https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-3.png
I sure hope that Christmas tree isn't half as close to the flames as it looks.
Can the mods simply can the Zach borg? They offer a boringly repetitive point of view meant to proselytize and propagandize, rather than inform.
Clearly paid shills, the lot of them!