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
Sunday, March 19. 2017
Why does climate alarmism look like a scam?
Good stuff. I would add that DiCaprio, like Al Gore, could convince me, at least, of his seriousness if he got rid of his many giant houses, giant boats, and constant private jet travel. My view: conspicuous, fashionable virtue-signaling by people who would not recognize a virtue if they stubbed their toe on one.
Posted by The News Junkie in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 14:38 | Comments (28) | Trackbacks (0)
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The simplest model is based on fundamental physics.
Without the greenhouse effect, the surface temperature of the Earth can be calculated by determining it's graybody temperature, which would be a chilly ≈-18°C, instead of the balmy +15°C that it is. We can calculate that a doubling of CO2 will directly increase the surface temperature by about +1°C. As warmer air can hold more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, a doubling of CO2 will result in about a 2-5°C increase in surface temperature.
We can directly observe the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human emissions, and that the surface is warming. If this warming is due to an increasing greenhouse effect, then the lower stratosphere should also be cooling, which is what we observe.
Oh boy! The Zach Borg is up early today and with its FAKE SCIENCE, too!
Given that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, what is the ideal level of methane, water vapor, CO2, etc for the atmosphere?
And what is the ideal "climate" for the earth?
Without the greenhouse effect, the surface temperature of the Earth can be calculated by determining it's gaybody temperature, which would be a chilly ≈-18°C, instead of the balmy +15°C that it is. We can calculate that a doubling of CO2 will directly increase the surface temperature by about +1°C.
We can directly observe that the best climate evah was at Noon in the middle of the Clinton Administration.
Was that the day he was not having sex, with that woman, Monica Lewinsky?
My guess is that Leonardo DiCaprio sees his 'sacrifice' as giving his personal time (for free) to a cause, when he could perhaps be making money doing something else or spending his free time living it up in private.
Very hard to convince someone like this that they are not true to a cause, if they feel they have given up something in order to pursue the cause in some way.
Al Gore, on the other hand, found a way to make money off of this nonsense. So I totally get his motivation to be the figurehead of something so he can sell books, get speaking engagements, etc.
Al Gore may personally have a larger carbon footprint than entire countries in Africa. And he's a scamster who has made millions off the Climate Change scam.
The basic scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect have been known for over a century. 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. Feel free to point out any problems with the analysis.
Human civilization developed over thousands of years during a period of relative climate stability. Disrupting this stability threatens agriculture, coastal flooding, human migration with the attendant political instability, and a permanent loss of much of humanity's natural inheritance.
Oh, Z. I'm not convinced you would recognize a fundamental concept in physics if it bit you.
(Psst. This is where you engage the argument, perhaps explaining why you think it is wrong.)
Back about a decade ago, I jokingly came up with a new unit of measurement called the gore. One gore was the equivalent of Al Gore's ecological "footprint": thus the average person in the US and Canada had something like a .0588 gore. I don't know what Leonardo's count would be but I'd guess it would be several gores.
Here's my personal challenge to the Gores and DiCaprios of this world: in the furtherance of the climate change cause, you bring your footprint down to the same level as mine then I'll consider your argument.
Who knows? From there we could all go down to the footprint of the average Rwandan together!
I don't necessarily agree with him, but the only celebrity I respect on environmental issues is Ed Begley Jr, a man who - mirabile dictu - actually walks the talk.
Not true at all.
When civ developed in Africa, the sahara was green
during roman era, they grew wine grapes in england
So, The Global warm period came and went, and Vikings colonized Greenland, then the Medieval Ice age came and went and the Vikings left Greenland.
If only they didn't drive their SUV's so much!
Graphs... we need lots and lots of graphs with those colored squiggly lines as proof of AGW...
Careful. You are not supposed to notice the medieval warming period. 97% of scientists have colluded to hide this information can't you get on board with this? And then you double down and point out that inconvenient yet very significant global cooling period awkwardly named the mini ice age. That would lead someone to the logical conclusion that a warming period following a mini ice age was inevitable and normal. Next thing you know you will point out that with the increased CO2 and warmer temperatures that humans can actually grow enough food to feed the 7.2 billion people on earth. Or that satellite pictures have shown a greening of earth over the last 40 years including desert areas.
I mispoke (must not have had my coffee yet) The proper terms are the Medieval warm period, and the mini ice age. It still doesn't change the fact that Vikings with SUV's and outboard motors made it happen.
Bird Dog: When civ developed in Africa, the sahara was green
Civilization in Egypt may have arisen because of the drying of the Sahara, leading to the migration and concentration of people in the Nile River basin. Of note, Egypt was first united at the end of the last drying period.
There have been many examples of climate change since the advent of civilization; such as the Roman Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, and perhaps the Terminal Classic period; hence, the term "relative climate stability". The current warming is occurring at a faster rate, and is projected to be of much greater magnitude, than any previous climatic episode in human history.
Dale: So, The Global warm period came and went, and Vikings colonized Greenland, then the Medieval Ice age came and went and the Vikings left Greenland. ]
What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next!
It's all fact, the Medieval warm Period and the Mini Ice age are all attested to by history. Odd, though that they don't show up on the Hockey stick Graph
Dale: It's all fact, the Medieval warm Period and the Mini Ice age are all attested to by history.
They were considered regional weather patterns, not global events. The idea of global climate change was a later scientific development.
Dale: Odd, though that they don't show up on the Hockey stick Graph
Here are several temperature reconstructions by climate scientists. While there is still some debate on how global the Medieval Warm Period may have been, most reconstructions show both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
They were regional in that they occurred in areas of the world that recorded history. And I will trust historical documents more than models that change monthly. While we're at it, concensus is not science. And I am always wary of a crisis that has as it's solution MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL! Leftists could not give a hoot about the weather or science other than it gives them another club to beat people with
"Climate scientists tell us that there are hundreds of climate models, all somewhat different. I assume that most of them do a good job predicting the past "
I'm impressed. The climate models can predict the past. I would have never believed it possible. I'm almost ready to join the climate change cult.
Only the first 100 times. After that, I concluded you know only how to parrot words that sound vaguely sciencey. Doesn't it work better when you move on to venues where you haven't already been repeatedly exposed? You seem to have been stuck here for a long while.
Dale: They were regional in that they occurred in areas of the world that recorded history.
You had said the climate changes were "attested to by history". More distant history generally only records regional history where people live. However, enough evidence has accumulated to suggest that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were global in extent, though the timing and effects varied across the globe.
Dale: And I will trust historical documents more than models that change monthly.
We provided a model of global warming which has been consistent for over a century, and forms the basis of modern climatology.
Dale: While we're at it, concensus is not science.
No. Science is based on evidence, evidence which supports anthropogenic global warming.