Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

[trysail]

" ...only the terminally gullible could believe that human beings could ever program a computer that would accurately simulate the climate system’s response to a change in a single variable, on any time scale.

We can’t conduct a controlled experiment on the Earth to measure the response to CO2. We don’t have multiple Earth’s in alternate realities with varying CO2 emissions, to do something akin to an epidemiological study. All of the known scientific techniques of actually measuring the response of the climate to CO2 changes aren’t available. Since scientists’ expertise is only in the scientific procedure, or method, there is no reason to believe that any scientist, no matter how intelligent, has any innate ability to somehow predict or offer judgments as to values that can’t be measured or observed scientifically. (The phrase “scientific opinion” is an oxymoron – there’s nothing scientific about a person’s opinion, and if it was reasonable for a scientist to just offer an expert judgment on the amount by which a change in X changes the output Y of a system, then what is the purpose of a double blind study where researchers are kept in the dark so as to avoid the possibility of confirmation bias?)

Climate scientists now say that climate changes can only be observed over multi-decadal scales. We’ve put our satellites in orbit in the late 1970’s. We have no reliable measurements of ocean temperatures, except maybe at a few defined depths in recent years, or even surface temperatures outside of a relative small sample of populated areas that haven’t been torn apart by war or famine or other things that distract scientists from diligently collecting data. Instead we seem to be relying solely on proxy data to reconstruct the historical data needed as input for climate models, proxy data for which its reliability can’t possibly be confirmed or measured, but only inferred. (Who has a time machine to send an army of graduate assistants back 500 years to take readings?) Outside of temperature, I’m not sure we have any reliable measurements of any climate variable that go back more than a couple decades. Cloud cover? Precipitation amounts? How do we know whether or to what extent the patterns of the jet stream or ocean currents flowed prior to say 1960? I can’t imagine that fluid systems like air or water preserve that information and its hard to imagine trusting any indirect proxies to give us precise measurements in changes to either of these patterns.

In short, we haven’t been observing the Earth’s climate system, in the sufficient detail that would be required, and for long enough, to ever believe that any mathematical model of the climate would be remotely accurate. If I hypothesize a relationship between the length of a bear’s hibernation and the amount of berries it eats in the fall, then watch a single bear eat a bunch of berries from September to November, and go to sleep in December, I can’t possibly be ready to model the hypothesized response the following February while the bear is still sleeping. No one would trust my results even after one, or two, or even 10 years – the number of samples are too small."

-"Kurt"
​

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/25/climate-models-dont-work/


​

 

[Disgustipated]

Thanks, "Kurt". Your well-respected work in this field is greatly appreciated.

 

[trysail]

“There is little doubt that the damage being done by climate-change policies currently exceeds the damage being done by climate change.”

-Matt Ridley, Ph.D.
​

​

 

[Disgustipated]

“There is little doubt that the damage being done by climate-change policies currently exceeds the damage being done by climate change.”

-Matt Ridley, Ph.D.
​

​

This Matt Ridley?

https://anewnatureblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/viscount-matt-ridley-the-new-king-coal/

“I have a financial interest in coal mining on my family’s land. The details are commercially confidential, but I have always been careful to disclose that I have this interest in my writing when it is relevant; I am proud that the coal mining on my land contributes to the local and national economy; and that my income from coal is not subsidized and not a drain on the economy through raising energy prices. I deliberately do not argue directly for the interests of the modern coal industry and I consistently champion the development of gas reserves, which is a far bigger threat to the coal-mining industry than renewable energy can ever be. So I consistently argue against my own financial interest.”

As for his championing the development of gas reserves, he conveniently forgets to mention that one of the biggest gas reserves is sitting in unworked coal seams – and projects are already underway to extract gas from coal without removing it from the ground.

And while he claims not to argue directly for the interests of the modern coal industry he then says

“It’s the fashion these days to vilify coal as the root of all environmental evil, but I think that’s mistaken. Coal and the technologies it spawned made it possible to double human lifespan, end famine, provide electric light and spare forests for nature. Because we get coal out of the ground, we do not have to cut down forests; because we use petroleum we don’t have to kill whales for their oil; because we use gas to make fertilizer we don’t have to cultivate so much land to feed the world. This country can compete with China on the basis of either cheap labour or cheap energy. I know which I’d prefer.”

 

[trysail]

...Fossil fuels have fueled the unprecedented industrial progress that doubled the human life expectancy and produced the cleanest, healthiest human environment in history.

That, unlike Al Gore’s hysteria about 20-foot sea level rises, is a fact. It’s also a fact that even though we hear so much hysteria about the one degree Celsius of climate change that has occurred since the Little Ice Age (half of it before major CO2 emissions) so far, heat-related deaths keep going down and overall climate-related death rates have gone down 98% since we started using extremely large amounts of fossil fuels.

With technology powered by affordable, reliable energy, human beings can adapt to just about whatever happens in just about any climate. Without practical energy, no matter what the climate is, we’re in trouble.

Fossil fuels are not “dirty energy.” Fossil fuels are a health necessity to the human environment. What about the waste? We are incredibly spoiled and ungrateful if we call that “dirty.” Every human and non-human activity creates waste products—certainly building monstrous solar and wind arrays out of hazardous materials does—but technology allows us to minimize dangerous waste.

The “dirty energy” objection is a dirty trick. Since everything creates some kind of waste byproduct, you can just oppose it by calling it “dirty.” If you study the mining and the materials that go into solar panels and windmills, and the incredible amount of coal and oil that goes into manufacturing and transporting and assembling their parts, you can call them “dirty,” too...

-Alex Epstein
"Fossil Fuels Improve The Planet"


​

​

 

[Disgustipated]

LOL @ Luk for thinking he could get any sort of rebuttal after that epic smack down.

 

[trysail]

"This is why Rocket's moment in history is unique. That soot-blackened locomotive sits squarely at the deflection point where a line describing human productivity (and therefore human welfare) that had been as flat as Kansas for a hundred centuries made a turn like the business end of a hockey stick. Rocket is when humanity finally learned to run twice as fast.

It's still running today. If you examined the years since 1800 in twenty year-increments, and charted every way that human welfare can be expressed in numbers— not just annual per capita GDP, which climbed to more than $6,000 by 2000, but mortality at birth (in fact, mortality at any age); calories consumed; prevalence of disease; average height of adults; percentage of lifetime spent disabled; percentage of population enrolled in primary, secondary, and postsecondary education; illiteracy; and annual hours of leisure time— the chart will show every measure better at the end of the period than it was at the beginning. And the phenomenon isn't restricted to Europe and North America; the same improvements have occurred in every region of the world. A baby born in France in 1800 could expect to live thirty years— twenty-five years less than a baby born in the Republic of the Congo in 2000. The nineteenth century French infant would be at a significant risk of starvation, infectious disease, and violence, and even if he or she were to survive into adulthood, would be far less likely to learn how to read..."
​

-William Rosen
The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam, Industry, and Invention
New York, New York 2010.​

​

Wow! I don't know where William Rosen has been hiding all these years (the dust jacket blurb says Rosen is: "the author of the award-winning history Justinian's Flea: Plague, Empire, and the Birth of Europe, was an editor and publisher at Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, and the Free Press for nearly twenty-five years" ) but this book is a riveting, tour-de-force recounting of the Industrial Revolution that is beautifully written and thoroughly researched. Rosen is very clearly a bit of a polymath; he moves easily from the chemistry of iron and combustion to the geology of England's Midlands to the physics of Newcomen's steam engine to the inventions of John Smeaton.


I picked up this book in one of those incidents of pure serendipity— I espied it on the shelf of my library. I'm luckier for it. This is a book that ought to be read by every person who purports to be educated.


This book has made me all too well aware of my near total ignorance of the events and persons responsible for the miracle of the Industrial Revolution. Silly me! I thought I knew something about it.





​

 

[trysail]

ht tp://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png

​

 

[trysail]

Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming:

The computer models are full of assumptions built on guesses on top of estimates based on conjectures filled with suppositions—

which is why the forecasts have been wholly inaccurate and demonstrated no predictive skill whatsoever.
​

​

 

[toubab]

Breakthrough solar cell captures carbon dioxide and sunlight, produces burnable fuel

http://phys.org/news/2016-07-breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-carbon.html


Too good to be true?

 

[toubab]

Brrrrrrrrr

http://www.thegwpf.com/new-solar-research-raises-climate-questions-triggers-attacks/

"New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks"

"Professor Valentina Zharkova:

We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum.

What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small.

She suggests it could be a repeat of the so-called Maunder Minimum – a period in the 17th century with little solar activity that may have influenced a cooling on Earth.

Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled. The rivers are frozen. There are winters and no summers, and so on.

So we only hope because these Maunder Minima will be shorter, the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century was about 65 years, the Maunder Minimum which we expect will be lasting not longer than 30-35 years."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Only deniers point to the sun as the center of the solar system...

​

 

[Saint Peter]

Don't shit in your mess kit.

 

[Aglaopheme]

She is not a denier.


http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/

However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

The very next paragraph from the link posted above that didn't make the cut:

Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.

 

[trysail]

An Open Letter To An Alarmist Shill/


Graham Woods, Ph.D. to Brian Cox, Ph.D.





https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2016/09/open-letter-alarmist-shill/


A brief excerpt:

...Along with any other panel member, you had a perfect right to nominate the dimensions of climate and climate change that you believe deserve to be put on the table, but as a non-specialist and a non-expert you had an obligation to confine those dimensions to those about which there can be very little doubt whatever: dimensions or facts that any intelligent non-specialist could, in principle, discover for herself. Here are some of them, the first and second groups surely safe from dispute by any climate scientist:

• Planet Earth is a dynamic planet in a dynamic solar system: thus climate change is, now and for millions of years to come, inevitable and unstoppable. In the absence of climate change, life as it exists on our planet simply wouldn’t.

• Our global climate system is almost incomprehensibly complex: across geological time and into the present affected interactively by the sun; the moon; possibly by some of the larger planets; by tectonic plate movement; volcanic activity; cyclical changes in the earth’s oceans; changes in the quantum and distribution of the earth’s biomass; changes in greenhouse gases that themselves are the result of changes in more underlying factors; by changes in the earth’s tilt and solar orbit; probably by changes in the earth’s magnetic field; and possibly by some other non-anthropogenic factors that at present scientists either don’t know about or whose impact they haven’t yet fully appreciated.

• ‘Consensus’ means ‘majority view’; majority views can be egregiously wrong (witness the work of apostates Marshall and Warren in the case of Helicobacter pylori and stomach ulcers).

• There is no published estimate of the degree of consensus on any aspect of climate or climate change that is so statistically robust that it can’t be contested; in any case, the size of the majority in favour of a scientific conclusion is logically disconnected from its validity: scientific hypotheses and conclusions are refined and proven by empirical data, not crowd appeal.

• There are now countless thousands of studies drawn from at least twenty scientific disciplines that aim to – or purport to – shed light on how the earth’s climate ‘works’. Many of their results and conclusions are, by their authors’ own reckoning, tentative; the results and conclusions of some studies contest the results and conclusions of others. There would be few, if any, aspects of climate that could claim 100% agreement among the relevant researchers except some of the raw data – and even many of these are contested, because different (though prima facie equally defensible) methods have been adopted to collect them.

• In 2016, the feedback loops and tipping points that are assumed to affect global climate systems are, in actual real-world settings, imperfectly understood, and tipping points in particular are largely speculative. This is true regardless of the possibility (even the likelihood) that the current ‘very rapid pulse increase’ in CO₂ is geologically unprecedented or the possibility that it will have irreversible climatic consequences.

• There is demonstrable scientific debate about the presumptive roles (yes, roles) of CO₂ in medium- and long-term climate change in the real world – and there is no conclusion about how CO₂ is related to these dimensions that is supported by incontestable empirical evidence.

• The impact of anthropogenic CO₂ is therefore a scientific question, not a matter on which ‘the science is settled’ or ‘the debate is over’...
​

​

(lots) more...
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2016/09/open-letter-alarmist-shill/





​

 

[trysail]

Energy Department Refuses President-Elect Trump Request for Information


...this outrageous response is the very epitome of a government department which is out of control. Refusing to provide information to the new administration about what staff do with their work time, to me suggests the US Department of Energy believes they are a law unto themselves – they think they are above politicians and political cycles, and intend to continue wasting money on climate programmes, regardless of what the new Trump administration wants.

-Eric Worrall
​

________________________
ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/13/energy-department-refuses-president-elect-trump-request-for-information/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12...resident-elect-trump-request-for-information/
​

 

[about_average]

Energy Department Refuses President-Elect Trump Request for Information


...this outrageous response is the very epitome of a government department which is out of control. Refusing to provide information to the new administration about what staff do with their work time, to me suggests the US Department of Energy believes they are a law unto themselves – they think they are above politicians and political cycles, and intend to continue wasting money on climate programmes, regardless of what the new Trump administration wants.

-Eric Worrall
​

________________________
ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/13/energy-department-refuses-president-elect-trump-request-for-information/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12...resident-elect-trump-request-for-information/
​

Excellent!!!

They should refuse to contribute to Trump working up a hit list. There's absolutely no reason that Trump needs to know that level of detail of Energy Dept Staff, or any other Dept.

That's like him sending a questionnaire to the pentagon asking to know what all the Master Sergeants and MCPO's are and have been working on.

 

[trysail]

Excellent!!!

They should refuse to contribute to Trump working up a hit list. There's absolutely no reason that Trump needs to know that level of detail of Energy Dept Staff, or any other Dept.

That's like him sending a questionnaire to the pentagon asking to know what all the Master Sergeants and MCPO's are and have been working on.

ROTFLMFAO

Yeah, god forbid that an employer ask an employee what he's working on.

​

​

 

[trysail]

What Is Seen And What Is Not Seen, Climate Edition
May 09, 2017
by Francis Menton

...Over in the world of climate reporting, what is seen is the constant drumbeat of articles about the "hottest" day/month/year ever. You have seen lots of those over the past year. Quick, now, when was the last one? Unless you follow this closely, you very likely won't know. And, can you think of seeing any recent article revealing that some recent period was not the hottest day/month/year/whatever? Neither can I. That's the "unseen." You can be forgiven for coming away with the impression that things just keep getting hotter and hotter.

For considerations of brevity, I'll leave out the first half of last year, and start in July. The New York Times headline on July 9 was "Record High Temperatures in the First Six Months of the Year." (Accompanied by a picture of a house engulfed in flames, of course.)

The average temperature across the contiguous United States for the first six months of this year has been the warmest on record — and by a considerable sum — dating back to 1895, according to a monthly report released Monday by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

Then, on August 8, it was this: "What Cornfields Show, Data Now Confirm: July Set Mark as U.S.'s Hottest Month." Of course, they are explicit in making sure you know to draw the conclusion that the succession of "hottest" months proves the underlying trend toward catastrophe:

It may come as little surprise to the nation’s corn farmers or resort operators, but the official statistics are in: July was the hottest month in the lower 48 states since the government began keeping temperature records in 1895. . . . “This clearly shows a longer-term warming trend in the U.S., not just one really hot month,” Mr. Crouch [climatologist at NCDC] said.

And, on September 12, "August Ties July for Hottest Month on Record."

It just keeps getting hotter. August has tied July for the distinction of being the hottest month since record-keeping began in 1880, NASA said in a news release on Monday.

Notice that this series of articles was in turn driven by a comparable series of press releases issued by the government propagandists.

And then, when were the next articles? October, November, December? Try to find them. On January 18, we get "Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year":

Marking another milestone for a changing planet, scientists reported on Wednesday that the Earth reached its highest temperature on record in 2016, trouncing a record set only a year earlier, which beat one set in 2014.

OK, but was there anything that happened to temperatures toward the end of the year that you'd like to tell us about? Nothing that you can find here.

And then, somehow, all these press releases and follow-on articles just disappeared. Any guesses as to what might be happening? Perhaps we should just go and check in on the satellite temperature data set over this period:


http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2017_v6-550x317.jpg


Aha! The global lower atmosphere temperature has dropped a full .56 deg C (that's almost exactly one full degree F) since its peak in February 2016. Do you think that any of these people would have the common decency to openly admit that fact and discuss it honestly? Don't kid yourself.


http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/5/8/what-is-seen-and-what-is-not-seen-climate-edition


​

​

 

[trysail]

We're outta there.

Halle-fucking-lujah !!!

Thank god.

The Paris climate "accord" was just plain stupid.

The entire Paris climate fiasco was based on pseudoscience, superstition, hysteria, crap data and worse.




​

 

[adrina]

We're outta there.

Halle-fucking-lujah !!!

Thank god.

The Paris climate "accord" was just plain stupid.

The entire Paris climate fiasco was based on pseudoscience, superstition, hysteria, crap data and worse.



​

Ignoramus.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2017_v6-550x317.jpg


Aha! The global lower atmosphere temperature has dropped a full .56 deg C (that's almost exactly one full degree F) since its peak in February 2016. Do you think that any of these people would have the common decency to openly admit that fact and discuss it honestly? Don't kid yourself.[/I]


http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/5/8/what-is-seen-and-what-is-not-seen-climate-edition

It's still above the 0 line, and that 0 line is above the 20th century average. Ah fucking ha.

Doctor Roy is screwing with you. Why can't you see that?

 

[jaF0]

Another Repube-lickin' fit for the looney bin:

GOP rep: If climate change is real, God will 'take care of it'
The Hill - ‎8 hours ago‎
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) told constituents last week that he believes if climate change is a real problem, God can fix it. “I believe there's climate change,” Walberg said at a town hall last Friday in Coldwater, Mich.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ignoramus.

In this case, the "m" should be an "n."

 

[adrina]

In this case, the "m" should be an "n."

Ya know, you may have a point there. Ha.