Sort of like blondes.
How Global Warming Really Works
- Thread starter Frisco_Slug_Esq
- Start date
Sort of like blondes.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
The Last Gasp of The Global Warming Scam: Treating You Like An Idiot
by Francis Menton ( "The Manhattan Contrarian" )
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/503a5bade4b0b543ed240317/t/58c38adee3df28a158a30600/1489210089124/?format=1000w
Here is the link to find this graph at the NASA website: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf The graph above is Figure 6 at the end of Hansen's paper found at the link. Now here is NASA's current graph of U.S. temperatures, starting at the same date and going through 2017:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/503a5bade4b0b543ed240317/t/58c38bc9ff7c50ccf21f549e/1489210325305/?format=1000w
And here is the link to find this second graph on NASA's website: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png
Now look at those two graphs closely. How is it that in the graph published in 1999, the years 1998 and 1999 were noticeably cooler than the 1930s, but by the time 2017 had come around, somehow 1998-99 had become noticeably warmer than the 1930s? If you look closely, you will see that I am not making this up. The 1930s to the late 1990s is 60 years of increasing CO2 emissions. If temperatures went down, and for that long a time, how could it possibly be that CO2 emissions are the principal driving force in global climate? It's completely obvious that there has to be some other natural factor or factors that overwhelm the effects of the CO2, if any.
So they "adjusted" the temperatures. But the record of the temperatures prior to the adjustments still exists. Hat tip to the great Tony Heller for doing the detective work to catch these people red-handed.
Thus you do not have to be a math whiz to understand that other natural factors, known or unknown, overwhelm the influence, whatever it may be, of CO2 on climate. Just look at the charts above -- or dozens of others at Heller's website. And when you read the output of the likes of Coral Davenport, know that she is treating you like an uninformed idiot...
(much) more...
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog...lobal-warming-scam-treating-you-like-an-idiot
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
From the comment section of Dr. Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/02/the-two-faced-reality-of-a-clean-energy-future/#comment-832881
As far as I can gather, after over 40 years of research, by tens of thousands of scientists, millions of man hours and billions of £/$’s, are there any credible field studies that reliably report that increasing atmospheric Co2 causes global temperature rise, specifically, man generated Co2 (because of course, it’s not man made, just released by man following accidental, natural sequestration). And that being the case, is there any evidence that raised levels of atmospheric Co2 were the cause of catastrophic weather conditions over the past 650M years?
I would imagine, that after all that well funded scientific study, there would be numerous, hundreds, if not thousands; however, no matter how I search for them, I can’t find any.
Am I using the wrong search terms?
I would imagine, that after all that well funded scientific study, there would be numerous, hundreds, if not thousands; however, no matter how I search for them, I can’t find any.
Am I using the wrong search terms?
-HotScot
The reply:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/02/the-two-faced-reality-of-a-clean-energy-future/#comment-832894
January 2, 2017 at 5:49 pm
No, there aren’t any that are solid. I looked for both my 2012 ebook The Arts of Truth and for the climate essays in 2014 ebook Blowing Smoke. Here is the essence of why. IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2 specifically says the warming from ~1920-1945 was mostly natural; there simply was not enough change in G[reen]H[house]G[ases] for that period to be attributed to the G[reen]H[ouse]E[ffect]. The problem is that the warming from ~1975-2000 is essentially indistinguishable from the earlier period. This introduces the attribution problem. Attributing the second period warming to the GHG is a matter of warmunist faith, not logic or fact or sound science. It is the reason for the paucity of warming attribution papers that is important, not the paucity itself.
You cannot use paleoclimate to answer the attribution question. Gore goofed. Ice cores say delta CO2 lags delta T by ~800 years. But Henry’s law on millennial time scales does not speak to AGW on centennial time scales. And you certainly cannot use deep geological history because the positions of the continents and the planets biology were both different. For example, the carboniferous period had basically two continents, Laurasia and Gondwana. It began with the evolution of lignin bearing woody plants, and ended about 60 million years later with the evolution of white fungi that feed off lignin.
You can best use search terms around attribution or GHE fingerprint. You will find lots of stuff, but precious few sound scientific papers. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its net warming effect is uncertain because of feedbacks, especially from water vapor and clouds. My own estimate is a positive Bode f net feedback of ~0.3 corresponding to observational ECS~ 1.65 compared to CMIP5 median 0.65 corresponding to median model ECS 3.2. So there will likely be some GHE warming. Just not enough for there to ever be any catastrophes.
No, there aren’t any that are solid. I looked for both my 2012 ebook The Arts of Truth and for the climate essays in 2014 ebook Blowing Smoke. Here is the essence of why. IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2 specifically says the warming from ~1920-1945 was mostly natural; there simply was not enough change in G[reen]H[house]G[ases] for that period to be attributed to the G[reen]H[ouse]E[ffect]. The problem is that the warming from ~1975-2000 is essentially indistinguishable from the earlier period. This introduces the attribution problem. Attributing the second period warming to the GHG is a matter of warmunist faith, not logic or fact or sound science. It is the reason for the paucity of warming attribution papers that is important, not the paucity itself.
You cannot use paleoclimate to answer the attribution question. Gore goofed. Ice cores say delta CO2 lags delta T by ~800 years. But Henry’s law on millennial time scales does not speak to AGW on centennial time scales. And you certainly cannot use deep geological history because the positions of the continents and the planets biology were both different. For example, the carboniferous period had basically two continents, Laurasia and Gondwana. It began with the evolution of lignin bearing woody plants, and ended about 60 million years later with the evolution of white fungi that feed off lignin.
You can best use search terms around attribution or GHE fingerprint. You will find lots of stuff, but precious few sound scientific papers. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its net warming effect is uncertain because of feedbacks, especially from water vapor and clouds. My own estimate is a positive Bode f net feedback of ~0.3 corresponding to observational ECS~ 1.65 compared to CMIP5 median 0.65 corresponding to median model ECS 3.2. So there will likely be some GHE warming. Just not enough for there to ever be any catastrophes.
-Rud Istvan
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Why Are Climate-change Models Flawed ? Because Climate Science Is So Incomplete
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
(can you believe it?— the Boston frickin' Globe !!! )
Do you believe,” CNBC’s Joe Kernen asked Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency’s new director, in an interview last Thursday, “that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate?”
Replied Pruitt: “No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no — I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible” — proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses “to all of us who call Earth home,” and said she couldn’t “imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists” in order to understand that. Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitt’s answer to the question he was asked — whether carbon dioxide is the climate’s “primary control knob” — was entirely sound. “We don’t know that yet,” he said. We don’t. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm. Adding more CO2 molecules to the atmosphere is like painting over a red wall with white paint — the first coat does most of the work of concealing the red. A second coat of paint has much less of an effect, while adding a third or fourth coat has almost no impact at all.
Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 — i.e., ½ x ½ Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8. Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists’ frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism.
The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision. But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50...
more...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-incomplete/hekwjPBTScRpFyXaXnrWhI/story.html
Replied Pruitt: “No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no — I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible” — proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses “to all of us who call Earth home,” and said she couldn’t “imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists” in order to understand that. Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitt’s answer to the question he was asked — whether carbon dioxide is the climate’s “primary control knob” — was entirely sound. “We don’t know that yet,” he said. We don’t. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm. Adding more CO2 molecules to the atmosphere is like painting over a red wall with white paint — the first coat does most of the work of concealing the red. A second coat of paint has much less of an effect, while adding a third or fourth coat has almost no impact at all.
Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 — i.e., ½ x ½ Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8. Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists’ frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism.
The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision. But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50...
more...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-incomplete/hekwjPBTScRpFyXaXnrWhI/story.html
thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 92,117
The last paragraph was a nice summary.....
But, I would go a bit farther and say definitively that the world is warming.
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,760
Can I believe it? Sure I can! The editorial that supports your preconceived bias was written by none other than the infamous looney tunes columnist Jeff Jacoby.
For example, just two weeks ago, Jeffy postulated that ANY criticism of Israel was by definition "anti-Semitism".
He is on the outermost fringe of political discourse....small wonder he supports your deeply flawed position!!
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
http://i.imgur.com/1lYuBIk.jpg
Why Are Climate-change Models Flawed ? Because Climate Science Is So Incomplete
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
(can you believe it?— the Boston frickin' Globe !!! )
Do you believe,” CNBC’s Joe Kernen asked Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency’s new director, in an interview last Thursday, “that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate?”
Replied Pruitt: “No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no — I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible” — proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses “to all of us who call Earth home,” and said she couldn’t “imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists” in order to understand that. Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitt’s answer to the question he was asked — whether carbon dioxide is the climate’s “primary control knob” — was entirely sound. “We don’t know that yet,” he said. We don’t. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm. Adding more CO2 molecules to the atmosphere is like painting over a red wall with white paint — the first coat does most of the work of concealing the red. A second coat of paint has much less of an effect, while adding a third or fourth coat has almost no impact at all.
Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 — i.e., ½ x ½ Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8. Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists’ frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism.
The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision. But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50...
more...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-incomplete/hekwjPBTScRpFyXaXnrWhI/story.html
Replied Pruitt: “No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no — I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible” — proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses “to all of us who call Earth home,” and said she couldn’t “imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists” in order to understand that. Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitt’s answer to the question he was asked — whether carbon dioxide is the climate’s “primary control knob” — was entirely sound. “We don’t know that yet,” he said. We don’t. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm. Adding more CO2 molecules to the atmosphere is like painting over a red wall with white paint — the first coat does most of the work of concealing the red. A second coat of paint has much less of an effect, while adding a third or fourth coat has almost no impact at all.
Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 — i.e., ½ x ½ Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8. Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists’ frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism.
The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision. But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50...
more...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-incomplete/hekwjPBTScRpFyXaXnrWhI/story.html
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,357
Here's how Global Warming really works: The left invents a catastrophic environmental threat. The solution requires oppressive government intervention to fix imaginary blame on western free enterprise and evil capitalism. Who then are forced to open their treasuries to wild looting sprees by the social elites to be redistributed among their various supporting constituencies.
Disgustipated
LAWLZ
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Posts
- 25,596
Your hero, Nixon, invented the EPA, you hypocritical fuckknuckle.
Conager
¿Que? Cornelius!
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Posts
- 18,282
The EPA eas established help identify and pay for cleaning up water and air that actually were dirty at the time. It worked. Had nothing to do with this global warming cult.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,357
The nail-bitingly superstitious and intellectually ruptured Disgustipated often accuses me of being a notorious poster named Vetteman, doesn't know that Nixon was never my hero, or that the EPA regularly operates outside its legislative authority and mission statement. It's kinda pathetic.
Disgustipated
LAWLZ
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Posts
- 25,596
Notorious?
Disgustipated
LAWLZ
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Posts
- 25,596
BTW, dummy... Vettebirther wants to abolish the EPA and that was more of my point, Horshack.
Not much point in reading further, is there?
Conager
¿Que? Cornelius!
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Posts
- 18,282
<Spideymode>
I am pleased to see you acknowlege that the problem is that the left invents.
</Spideymode>
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,357
But we know you did.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
...The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.
Despite this, climate change has been the alleged motivation for numerous policies, which, for the most part, seem to have done more harm than the purported climate change, and have the obvious capacity to do much more. Perhaps the best that can be said for these efforts is that they are acknowledged to have little impact on either CO2 levels or temperatures despite their immense cost. This is relatively good news since there is ample evidence that both changes are likely to be beneficial although the immense waste of money is not.
I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science [in this presentation], but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”
–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
ht tp://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
Yes. We withdrew. Each country should do their own. Why should the US pay most of the costs, yet again in another 'global agreement'?
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Each state should do their own, then.
States like California and Minnesota have taken all sorts of actions. A number of states haven't done squat.
https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/climate101-state.pdf
Trump and the current Congress are working against state actions.
Nonsense. It's a global problem, not a local problem; every country marching in step with the others is essential to solving it.
