
I look forward to . . .
. . . the many commentards who will show up presently to ridicule this research by many informed scientists, rebutting it with either wishful thinking, anecdotes, or a random blog post.
Don't disappoint me, guys!
We humans have gorged ourselves on fossil fuels for well over a century, and the bill for that delicious, civilization-enhancing meal has finally come due. We're now paying that tab, and doing so while burdened by scalding inflation: Namely a steadily ballooning exchange rate of punishing heatwaves and their tag-along losses of …
Do carbon taxes actually reduce carbon emissions or do they just make profit for those trading in carbon?
The Canadian carbon tax just seems silly as they refund something like 90% in the form of tax credits, so it appears to just be a huge money-go-round an an excuse to inflate the size of government while pretending to actually do 'something'. The Canadian system implies that as a normal householder you will receive MORE as a rebate than you spent on the carbon tax in the first place. Eh?
And really, do they do anything other than make life more expensive and fuel inflation?
Carbon trading is just a license for the elite to make money. It should be banned.
What is even stupider than refunds for carbon taxes or trading carbon credits is simply offshoring your carbon. The UK has made certain industries completely impractical to operate due to their carbon output but we can't function without them. eg steel, fertiliser, power generation. So the industry leaves, we slap each other on the back as they subtract some carbon from the UK's footprint and then go an import the very same thing from a country that makes it in a more carbon intensive way than we did in the first place.
I'm not dissing Poland but I doubt their steel plants are as clean as the ones in the UK. Yet we are building our offshore wind turbines with Polish steel as its cheaper due to less regulations.
There is logic in the idea that increasing the cost of energy encourages conservation measures, such as buying a more efficient vehicle or adding insulation to your house. The problem from the political perspective is that the benefits accrue in the long term whereas the pain is immediately noticeable. The Canadian situation is made more difficult in that the neighboring country is preoccupied with keeping gas cheap.
Canada's carbon tax has managed to induce shrill complaints — including those by corporatized mainstream media. ... Except for high-income earners, Canadians are more than reimbursed via federal government rebate, yet the whining persists.
Meanwhile, many drivers of superfluously huge and over-powered thus gas-guzzling vehicles seem to consider it a basic human right. It may scare those drivers just to contemplate a world in which they can no longer readily fuel that ‘right’, especially since much quieter electric cars are for them no substitute.
Such disturbing mass addiction to fossil fuel products by the larger public undoubtedly helps keep the average consumer quiet about the planet’s greatest polluter, lest the consumer be deemed hypocritical. There’s a continuance of polluting, if not destroying, the natural environment with a business-as-usual attitude, like it all is somehow absorbed by the planet without repercussion to human wellbeing.
Also, here in the corpocratic West, if the universal availability of a renewable energy alternative would come at the expense of the traditional ‘energy’ production companies’ large profits, one can expect obstacles, including the political and regulatory sort. If something notably conflicts with corporate big-profit interests, even very progressive motions are greatly resisted, often enough successfully.
Greatly exacerbating this already serious problem is the large and growing populace who are too overworked, underpaid, worried and rightfully angry about food and housing unaffordability for themselves or their family, to have energy left to criticize big industry for the environmental damage it causes/allows, especially when not immediately observable.
It all must be convenient for big industry's profit interests — particularly when neoliberals and conservatives remain overly preoccupied with vocally criticizing one another for their relatively trivial politics and therefore divert attention away from some of the planet's greatest polluters and pollution, where it should and needs to be sharply focused.
"Canadians are more than reimbursed via federal government rebate"
So if I get taxed $1 and get a rebate of say $1.05 what is the incentive to reduce my fuel usage?
"drivers of superfluously huge and over-powered thus gas-guzzling vehicles seem to consider it a basic human right."
But you just said that you get "more than reimbursed" so again why would you reduce fuel usage?
For a carbon tax to be anything other than a performative virtue signal by a govt there has to be an incentive to move to a better solution and the better solution has to be financially beneficial to both parties. Right now this doesn't exist. Oh we're going to tax you a little bit more to drive your huge V8 and that will somehow make you buy a 100k EV which will cost far more than the extra fuel costs.
"traditional ‘energy’ production companies’ large profits"
This is where Europe differs in that many of the large traditional fossil companies have diversified into renewables as they can suckle on the green energy handouts as well. I can't see too many windfarms being built in northern Alberta.
You missed the “except for high earners “ part. In other words, the sort of people that will tend to own those” superfluously huge and over-powered thus gas-guzzling vehicles”.
You also seem to have missed the advent of EVs that cost rather less than your fantasy $100k.
You also seem to have missed that 4 of the 10 largest wind farms in Canada are in Alberta. Including the largest.
So all in all, a bit of a miss.
Not ridiculing it. The effects are real. It's just a shame that many of the proposed solutions involve wealth transfers to third world nations.
"Sorry sea level rise is flooding your island nation and drowning your people. Here's some money. Go buy yourselves some nice air conditioning units."
Considering how many of the causes of these problems have involved wealth- and resource-transfers out of third-world countries, I would say reversing the moral obligation is fair.
I live in a rich industrialised country that has given a binding undertaking to Tuvalu (entirely less than 5m above sea level) that its citizens will be able to emigrate permanently in the event their country is inundated. At least drowning won't be a problem, but the loss of culture and social cohesion will likely be irreparable.
What is the Middle East going to do with the population of the Nile delta? South Asia with the population of the Ganges delta? Europe with the Netherlands? The USA with the population of Miami? The cost of installing AC is going to be the least of this planet's problems.
This post has been deleted by its author
Don't disappoint me, guys !
funny, I was thinking the same, but with a slightly different emphasis.
Her next research mission will be to examine the access to heatwave-mitigation solutions in the affected areas, and the costs of enhancing mitigations such as easy access to air conditioning (AC) in the areas that need help
now that's really funny, it's like the people who think that opening the fridge when it's hot will cool the kitchen. The same people who complain about earth warming suggest, as solution, even more earth warming ? (I hope you understand thermodynamics enough that while AC cools on one end, it heats on the other, and the overall sum is more warming than cooling. That's the first principle of thermodynamics. The FIRST principle)
Nowadays I'm a dual citizen, so I try to make myself feel better by saying things like: if we're talking roll-the-dice constitutional change based on wishful thinking, anecdotes and blog posts, and flying in the face of the reasoned opinions of experts then, you know: Brexit.
The American system — where a sufficiently-wealthy person can skip all the decades of trench work and toil and go straight in as President — just seems to let people express those same instincts much more often and with wider effect.
Remember the case where astronomers published reseach which said that 'solar intensity' i.e. watts/m^2 had increased 2% and *every* climatologist went to panic -mode?
They were explaining that a) it definitely won't affect Earth at all and b) astronomers have measured it wrong(!) and c) thermodynamics *does not apply* (the ridiculous part).
To me that revealed the true nature of the bullsh**ers: They know they are lying and do it just for the money government gives them to justify taxing oil and coal, literally tens of billions per year globally.
I'm not saying 2% is warming or it is not warming, but the panic in climatology field was very real and very obvious. It never became the big headlines, so the unwashed masses never noticed. As an actual scientist, I noticed.
Just a note though: 2% increase in temperature is ~5C. Do whatever you want with that data.
Oh, you mean that solar intensity that didn’t actually change?
Not sure what you mean. Are you denying this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum#Little_Ice_Age
The Maunder Minimum roughly coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced colder than average temperatures. Whether there is a causal relationship, however, is still under evaluation
ie correlation != causation. Plus the effect potentially exceeding cause, and that the records show the LIA began prior to the Maunder Minimum. So maybe that just made the LIA worse. But-
A potential explanation of this has been offered by observations by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment, which suggest that solar ultraviolet light output is more variable over the course of the solar cycle than scientists had previously thought
And SORCE was an interesting experiment because observations. But it only ran between 2003-2020, so one of those 'since records began' challenges. But solar variabilty may be a contributor to conditions like the MWP & LIA because we know solar UV can have a big impact on atmospheric photochemistry. Perhaps this helps explain warming since the end of the LIA, and also-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
The Dalton Minimum was a period of low sunspot count, representing low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830 or 1796 to 1820.. Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.<
Hmm.. and then we cherry picked 1850 as the start date for our 'modern warm period'. Coincidence that it just happened to be right after lower-than-average global temperatures? Or part of the plan to get $100bn a year for for the UN? Knowing, or framing the outcome is what's known in the trade as sucker bet. If I asked you to bet on the Sun rising tomorrow, you'd refuse the bet. If I told you it was going to warm following prolonged cooling, you'd get taxpayers to bet everything.
But also interesting because we may now be heading into the Eddy Minimum, and if so, may also get LIA-type conditions. That wouldn't be good.
I have no desire to ridicule the scientists, unless they deserve it, because all they're doing is earning their crust. What I'd like to ridicule is the media who keep quoting "since records began" which timespan is generally naff all in climate terms.
Thanks for the downvotes
What do you suggest instead? They can't get data from before records began because reality, so what is your suggestion? They should just leave it for a couple of hundred years so the evidence is REALLY compelling?
You sound like you think that's a really clever argument too.....
They should just leave it for a couple of hundred years so the evidence is REALLY compelling?
Actually, yes. That's the way science is supposed to work. Which is a problem for climate science because the standard climate interval is 30 years. Anything shorter than that is probably just weather.
You sound like you think that's a really clever argument too....
You probably think that's a really clever counter argument, but that's just the way climate 'science' works. Making claims like 'since records began' sounds more dramatic and raises the fear of imminent Thermageddon. So recently we had some 'red weather', which is a new 'Global Warming' phenomena that amplifies the effect of normal weather. So leads to claims like the one discussed here-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/01/28/mace-heads-record-wind-claims-only-based-on-22-years-data/
How can they declare a record at a site that has only been in use for 22 years? No reputable organisation would do this. It has no more legitimacy than the Met Office declaring record winds on The Needles, which began recording wind speeds in 1996.
The Mace Head weather station was only installed in 2003, so has no data of any statistical significance in climate terms. If it had been installed in 1850, it might, but cherry picking and exagerating is just how climate 'science' works.
”…the standard climate interval is 30 years. Anything shorter than that is probably just weather.“
In the context of mankind’s impact on climate “change”, the interval is a metric fuckton more than 30 years. On a planetary timescale, anything shorter than 10,000 years is ‘probably just weather’. A consequence of the planet doing what planets do.
A climate change graph that looks like this…
_________________/
-10,000yr______1900
…looks pretty conclusive until you extrapolate it onto a planetary timescale and see that it’s more this…
___/\_____/\___/\______/\__________/
-1m yr___-500k yr_____-10k yr __1900
As a sidenote, my personal pet peeve is climate nuts screetching “We’re killing the planet”.
We’re not.
Mankind might be in for a rough ride, but the planet will be fine.
The basic problem with ALL climate science is that the accurate data records are without exception either very short or in some other way crap. If you rely on those, you're buggered.
So what you do is use proxies for temperature. Isotope ratios in fossils and in ice cores, other things like that. If you're clever (and a climate scientist looking unemployment in the face can be very clever indeed) then you end up with a temperature record that is excellent recently, pretty decent for the last few hundred years, quite nice for a few thousand and still nice for the last couple of million then tends to tail off a bit as you go back further than that.
You get the same sort of effect when you're looking a atmospheric oxygen for example as well. We know what it is now, and we can guesstimate that during the Carboniferous it was right at the theoretical max of about 35% (any more and forest fires turn into global flash-overs), but after the Carboniferous, when fungi had worked out how to digest lignin and on until a few million years back, it's more stick a finger in the air and speculate (between 25% and 21%). It is important when you're talking about dinosaurs, though not as important as it used to be now that we've realised they had bird-like lungs.
So, right at the moment we're looking at stonking great global warming right about the time we ought to be looking at another Ice Age, and we still don't quite understand how Ice Ages get going (though the last one clobbered the Neanderthals).
records of climate go back pretty far, and we don't need written records or oral traditions to know about climate going pretty far back. maybe they are thinking of daily temperature records kept by weather stations but plenty is known about climate conditions going back much further than that. witnesses aren't always human.
..plenty is known about climate conditions going back much further than that
Sure. Everything from trees and plants being uncovered as glaciers and ice sheets melt* to well documented evidence of the RWP, MWP, LIA to a recent vid from about the Blue Hole and showing divers swimming around underwater stalactites. There are a few underwater caves like that, and they're evidence that sea level rise is nothing new, or 'unprecedented'.
witnesses aren't always human.
Or reliable, like Mann and pre-screening samples to create just the right Hockey Stick. Normally that would be academic misconduct and career ending, but not in climate 'science' where he's made millions promoting 'Global Warming' and denying things like the MWP or LIA. But this is nothing new. The Bible was a draft copy of the IPCC reports, predicting how the world would end if we don't mend our sinful ways. Many other religions and cults would tell us the sky gods are angry, but donate generously and they'll pray the grey away. Our ancestors even spent a lot of effort building ancient observatories to predict things like eclipses, and fill their boots. Now, we're still at it and building windmills to appease the sky gods instead. But basically the same deal. Bunch of shysters preying on people's fear and superstition to make themselves rich.
*Plant life has obviously got a lot softer since those days. Modern, progressive plants can't grow under ice anymore. Wusses.
" plenty is known about climate conditions going back much further than that."
Sure. And if it contradicts the ideas climatologists approve, it's disqualified immediately.
For example: We do know that Vikings were living by farming in Greenland, hundreds of years. (their houses are *still there*) We also know that walnut tree was living as natural plant here in North around that era: Dormant seeds can still be found almost everywhere, 1000 years later.
Greenland isn't very green anymore and walnut tree grows naturally 3000 kilometers South currently. Neither fact does well with climatologists.
Climatologist talk about 'temporary warming' ... possible, but it lasted hundreds of years, at least: Trees do not spread fast. Also: The current one isn't temporary then? They have *no idea*, they just *talk a lot*.
They also claim it was 'local' warming and naturally have absolutely no proof of that at all: They have to claim that, otherwise the hypothesis of continuous warming falls like a house of cards.
Which leads to one major problem: *Everything* they know about past temperatures is derived from co2-content of handful of drill holes in Arctic ice. Anyone using single derived measurement point as global average indicator is insane in my books.
Combine that with the extensive use of numerical models instead of actual science and you get a proper pseudo-science.
No wonder paleontologists are laughing their as**es off.
Proper tragicomedy, for sure: Explanations are getting more and more desperate when *not a single model* is correct, or even near, and infinite grant money fountain is drying up.
Engineers use numerical models a lot: They only difference is that theirs are *correct* to the 3rd decimal point (for a certain amount of time).
Climatologists with billions and billions in cash haven't been able to make even one model which produces correct predictions. Either they can't or won't, as it wouldn't fit into politics(no money): You decide.
One thing is sure: Making yet another model cloning the old one happens *only* because of money: It won't predict anything correctly either.
For example: We do know that Vikings were living by farming in Greenland, hundreds of years. (their houses are *still there*)
Plus there's evidence being uncovered by melting ice. Erik's crew were damn clever with their under-the-ice farming. Same is true in other parts of the world where melting ice is uncovering artefacts that are only a few thousand years old, if that. Strange how that works. It's almost.. as if cyclical climate change is.. normal. And without any obvious correlation with CO2.
Climatologist talk about 'temporary warming' ... possible, but it lasted hundreds of years, at least: Trees do not spread fast. Also: The current one isn't temporary then? They have *no idea*, they just *talk a lot*.
Yep. If it wasn't costing us the Earth, it is sometimes amusing. So the LIA didn't happen. Present slabs of evidence showing it did. So deny all that and say it didn't extend to both hemispheres. Present evidence from north and south to show nope, it happened there as well. So deny all that and claim it was just a 'regional' thing, and those regions just happened to coincide with the regions where there's a tonne of evidence. Then the most amusing part, asking a climate 'scientist' to explain the physical basis for multi-decadal cooling (or warming) so that only small regions of Europe suffered the documented effects, not others. That rather flies in the face of most current understanding of both weather and climate.
Logical consistency is not a prerequisite in climate science, and demostrating cognitive dissonance may help with advancement.
(and ok, for 'big picture' climate change, some localised/regional stuff could be explained by things like land bridge erosion altering ocean currents, or smaller scale, look at satellite images of the Yamal Peninsula and it shows meanders that would have altered the hydrology of the area where the sacred trees that formed the Hockey Stick grew.)
> Plus there's evidence being uncovered by melting ice. Erik's crew were damn clever with their under-the-ice farming. Same is true in other parts of the world where melting ice is uncovering artefacts that are only a few thousand years old, if that. Strange how that works. It's almost.. as if cyclical climate change is.. normal.
Trouble is that’s not necessarily evidence of climate change… Ie. As far as we know the earth wasn’t appreciably warmer in Erik’s time.
We know the movement of the poles and precession will have some effect. Plus we don’t know the “long term” (in human terms) what the Gulf Stream’s (and ocean currents) normal movements are.
Yes cyclical climate change may be normal and we also know that volcanos are quite capable of emitting vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere (it is sobering to realise that only a tiny fraction of the carbon on earth has been released into the atmosphere to form CO2). However, there is nothing cyclical about the amount of buried carbon man has released since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution less than 300 years ago ( interestingly, the amount of carbon emitted during the Industrial Revolution are insignificant compared to the amounts we are now releasing every year.).
Trouble is that’s not necessarily evidence of climate change… Ie. As far as we know the earth wasn’t appreciably warmer in Erik’s time.
If ice is only now uncovering remains, then it's reasonable to assume that it was at least as warm then as it is today, otherwise it wouldnt have been possible for them to farm at all. Same with other plants like walnuts growing in places where it's still currently too cold for them to grow today. Plus there's a lot of tax and tithe records that can be used as proxies for temperature/weather. Or fun ones like wine production. Aha! the reality deniers will say. We can grow grapes in the UK today! Except of course the varieties grown today aren't the same as were grown in the past and modern ones are selected for cold weather tolerance. Reason for that was partly necessity, ie restocking European vineyards after the LIA had a bit of an oopsie when we imported vines from the US, which contained pests that wiped out a lot of the vines that had survived the cold and wet weather.
The LIA is maybe better understood because it was more recent than the MWP, so there are more records. So things like Florence, Italy being snowed in for a month in 1352, or the Rhine freezing over, or the Baltic.. and those weren't the coldest parts of the LIA, which happened in the 17th & 18th century. But denied by the carbon cult.
We know the movement of the poles and precession will have some effect. Plus we don’t know the “long term” (in human terms) what the Gulf Stream’s (and ocean currents) normal movements are.
Nope, which is why we can't really say for any certainty that the present-day climate (or climate change) is in any way abnormal, or can be correlated with CO2. Milankovitch Cycles are a common way to explain Ice Ages, but effect exceeds cause. There are many possible cycles, epicycles all with different periodicities, and physics and harmonics state that sometimes, the peaks line up and the effects are more pronounced. Cooling, especially prolonged cooling is hard to explain because that needs a plausible mechanism that reverses the normal energy output we get from the Sun. Volcanoes can do it, but only for a couple of years at most before the effect ends.. Which is also a bit risky, ie we know from historical records that the onset of the LIA was pretty abrupt and severe, with the Rhine and Baltic freezing in the early years of the 1300s.. But we have no real idea why. And then there was the impending Ice Age scare from the 1970s, which also gets denied even though there was a lot of newspapers, magazine and documentaries discussing that from the time.
Some concepts are pretty simple though, like why 1850 as the start date for showing 'temperature anomalies'. Why was 1850 so special that it has become the benchmark for the 'perfect' climate we should be spending trillions to recreate? Of course being right around the end of the LIA helps, because we'd expect it to warm, else we'd still be in the LIA, unless that's denied of course.
Remember the LIA was a period of <u>Regonal</u> cooling, not global cooling.
Nothing you have said rules out Regional warming to account for Erik’s under ice farms.
>” like why 1850 as the start date for showing 'temperature anomalies'.”
Simple’s! No conspiracy required:
“ How do you go about establishing what temperatures were doing across the globe - which is what you need for a proper baseline?
1850-1900 was chosen precisely because there is a reasonable instrument record of climate worldwide.
Go back into 1720-1800 and long-term temperature records become very sparse.”
[ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38745937 ]
I suspect Jellied Eel you may be suffering from grumpy old man syndrome: an inability to comprehend anything that contradicts your fixed ideas.
Remember the LIA was a period of <u>Regonal</u> cooling, not global cooling.Nothing you have said rules out Regional warming to account for Erik’s under ice farms.
Ah, that's a bit of cognitive dissonance. So the LIA didn't exist because it's not in the Hockey Stick. Then ok, it did exist, but was only regional. And the regions just happened to exclude the locations where the wood for the Hockey Stick was cored. But the Hockey Stick shows a global temperature, even though it's actually very spatially constrained, and overlooked both the MWP and LIA. But trust in wooden thermometers!
And sure, regional warming is still a possibilty, even though the 'region' included Greenland, Europe and China.. Oh, and the southern hemisphere as well. But then if you assume there were multiple regions, all experiencing the same climate change at the same time, ie Greenland, the Baltics, Germany, Italy, the UK.. what physical processes could possibly allow that to happen? Multiple 'regions', and yet somehow excluded the trees sampled for the Hockey Stick so the Hockey Team missed a very well documented, and prolonged. Alternatively, there's a simpler explanation that trees make lousy thermometers, and the Hockey Stick was actually a steaming pile of BS.
Which is actually important, because the same trees/samples are still being used in supposedly 'independent' dendro reconstructions like the one discussed here-
https://climateaudit.org/2024/06/02/tracing-the-esper-confidence-intervals/
As discussed in previous article, Esper et al (2024) link, the newest hockey stick diagram, asserted that 2023 was the “warmest summer” in millennia by an updated version of “Mike’s Nature trick” – by comparing 2023 instrumental temperature to purported confidence intervals of temperature estimates from “ancient tree rings” for the past two millennia. In today’s article, I will report on detective work on Esper’s calculations, showing that the article is not merely a trick, but a joke.
But a very expensive joke. If you're mathematically inclined, Steve's forensic fiskings are well worth a read, especially as a lot of other mathematicians, statisticians and scientists offer a 'peer review' in the comments.
Go back into 1720-1800 and long-term temperature records become very sparse.”
Which means they're also lousy for calculating any meaningful 'global' reconstructions. Nyquist and Shannon etc probably would be sceptics given the extremely limited temporal and spatial resolution, and sampling frequency. But 1850 is still remarkably convenient given it's the end of the LIA, and the beginning of the Industrial revolution. So 'predicting' warming is as about as skillful as me predicting the sun will rise tomorrow.
I suspect Jellied Eel you may be suffering from grumpy old man syndrome: an inability to comprehend anything that contradicts your fixed ideas.
You have it kind of bass-ackwards. Sure, I'm aging into COG territory, but I've also been studying this stuff since at probably before MBH98. Which also means I've seen the tired black body-SB-CO2-Thermageddon gish gallop over and over again. And the 'fixed ideas' are held by the people who've grabbed that meme from SkS and can't grasp why they're bollocks, or explain why reality frequently diverges from sim-science. Or why we're building windmills, when 'Teh Science!' predicts 'extreme weather' that will just knock them down. Or rip solar panels off roofs, fields.. That really doesn't make any sense.
Which is also somewhat ironic. We're IT types. We typically distrust 'AI' models. Yet some seem to have blind faith in extremely crude climate models.
>” Ah, that's a bit of cognitive dissonance. So the LIA didn't exist because it's not in the Hockey Stick.”
No cognitive dissonance on my part.
If we just take todays “global” temperature, it has to take into account the entire range of temperatures from the -32C at the South Pole to the 31C in Jamaica. So it is quite possible for the LIA to be in the hockey stick, but for it not to register.
I’m a little surprised you haven’t draw attention to the problems with the wooden thermometers, namely they won’t exist for places with long term cold (ie. Permafrost and ice) and thus would tend to be biased. Hence for the perd before modern times where we started including temperatures from cold areas, there is the potential the hockey stick is showing a slightly higher global temperature that would have been the case if we had a more complete data set.
However, all this is pretty meaningless, given the major change on global temperatures has happened since 19850 and has been accelerating, with human activity the main culprit for putting ancient buried carbon into the atmosphere in the quantities we are measuring.
I’m a little surprised you haven’t draw attention to the problems with the wooden thermometers, namely they won’t exist for places with long term cold (ie. Permafrost and ice) and thus would tend to be biased.
I did-
But the Hockey Stick shows a global temperature, even though it's actually very spatially constrained, and overlooked both the MWP and LIA. But trust in wooden thermometers!
It's also one of the things discussed in the Climateaudit post on the Esper reconstruction-
This was, to say the least, an understatement. What the experiment actually demonstrated was that different climate groups could get dramatically different reconstructions from identical data. Thus, over and above the many well known defects and problems in trying to use tree ring data to reconstruct past temperatures, there was yet one more source of uncertainty that had not been adequately canvassed: the inconsistency between climate groups presented with the same data.
But in general, it's a simple question of what you should trust. Wooden thermometers, with their known errors, inconsistencies, and sparse data that erase the MWP & LIA, or all the other evidence that shows the MWP and LIA actually happened across a wide region.
..namely they won’t exist for places with long term cold (ie. Permafrost and ice) and thus would tend to be biased.
That's a different kind of problem, and a further problem of spatial relevance wrt global temperatures. Ice cores can obviously only act as temperature proxies for the locations from which they were taken, yet are used to represent global temperatures. The further back you attempt to go, the worse the problem gets with proxies being calibrated against other proxies, until finally something is calibrated against the instrumental record, which has its own errors and uncertainties, or just bias. So the interval used by Esper.
However, all this is pretty meaningless, given the major change on global temperatures has happened since 19850 and has been accelerating, with human activity the main culprit for putting ancient buried carbon into the atmosphere in the quantities we are measuring.
But again, you don't know this. If you're making a claim based on the instrumental record since 1850, you can only make reliable claims based on that data, and nothing else.. And the data may not be very reliable, ie errors in observations, the spatial sparsity of those records and sometimes, 'adjustments'. There are periods like the 1920s where it may have been warmer than today, and records may have been tampered with. If you adjust historical data downwards, you can exagerate warming trends. You can experiment with that here-
https://www.woodfortrees.org/
However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse still, to mislead others.
You can create warming, cooling, pausing trends, just by cherry picking start dates. Or dataset(s). What you can't do with the 'since 1850' is make any reliable claim that it's representative of any past climate. So the MWP might have been warmer, and it might have warmed faster. And if that's true, then it debunks both wooden thermometers, and CO2 dogma. This, again goes back to the central debate as to just how much CO2 is responsible (ie climate sensitivity wrt CO2), and how much is just natural variability following the end of the LIA, the reasons for which are currently unknown, or disputed.
" They can't get data from before records began because reality, "
Oh, but they already did!
Just use your climate model to predict global averages all the way to the last ice age and *then* explain it's 'hotter than ever'.
Which is the norm now. Data? We don't need no stinking data!
Climate science includes things like core sampling of Antarctic ice to analyse entrapped atmospheric gas and other analogues of climate. So records in this context includes the physical record, which goes back thousands of years, as well as the direct observation record.
"core sampling of Antarctic ice to analyse entrapped atmospheric gas and other analogues of climate. "
Sure. Prove the analogues first and then we can discuss. Until that it's an *assumption*. No more, no less.
I actually found the paper where IPCC 'researcher' made that assumption (long time ago) and presented it as scientific fact. Which it of course isn't, but who cares when there's money to be made?
Also *a single point of measurement* presented as *global average*? These people are insane.
So far no-one has been able to present a formula defining the connection between CO2 content and global average temperature and climatologist have spent billions in cash and 30 years trying to make one. I've a funny feeling they can't do it. If you believe otherwise, you're literally a believer.
If that happens/Until that happens, measured CO2 content 5 000 years ago indicates *only* CO2 content.
"because all they're doing is earning their crust"
I think that's highly dismissive of scientists and science generally. Nobody pursues a career in science for the money. People become scientists because of the intellectual challenge and the thrill of learning and working stuff out.
And that's why the world should pay more attention to science - it's a discipline that isn't driven by anything other than the pursuit of understanding.
And that's why the world should pay more attention to science
Especially climate 'science'..
it's a discipline that isn't driven by anything other than the pursuit of understanding.
Sadly, that is not entirely true. It's a discipline that's often forced to pursue funding, or the science doesn't get done, knowledge isn't advanced, or scientists just lose their jobs. Even scientists have to eat, and if they can't get funding, they can't. So how much time scientists are forced to spend pursuing money rather than knowledge. Then if they're pursuing money, that carries the risk of science being corrupted by vested interests. You can get funding for research that supports Global Warming, but if you dare to criticise it, you'll lose funding and probably your job for being a 'denier'.
This is especially prevalent in climate 'science' and the way celebrity 'scientists' like Mann or Hansen were catapulted from a sleepy backwater of science to fame, fortune and tenure on the back of broken Hockey Sticks and failed predictions. Especially when snake oil salesmen like Al Gore and astroturfing outfits like Fenton Communications got involved. Gore had a movie and VC fund to promote, Fenton helped by creating the 'RealClimate' blog to assist. Strange the way the comp.sci guys behind RealClimate couldn't register a domain name, so 'needed' Fenton to register the domain for them.
"People become scientists because of the intellectual challenge and the thrill of learning and working stuff out."
...and once you have name, why not flaunt it to make money. Like Mr. Mann here.
Every scientist can be bought: It's only a question of money. If you believe otherwise, try some real world for a change.
Like 2 million euros 'grant money' for 'research', like climatologists do: "Gee, do I want another 2M grant or not?' Wrong results = not published = no grant.
Which part of that is too complicated?
(about science) " ... it's a discipline that isn't driven by anything other than the pursuit of understanding"
OK, commenter is an actual idealist devoid of reality, sorry. The *only* place where you can see worse rivarly and back-stabbing than in science, is a theathre. Not only that, it's *always* about fame or money or both.
Exactly. Both are highly experienced, carefully objective men making informed, data-supported analyses.
Err.. You are kidding, right? Mann's Hockey Sticks have been thoroughly debunked, and there was even an IT angle when the 'ClimateGate' leak happened, including Harry's famous read.me file. If nothing else, the claim that Mann was 'highly experienced' at the time of MBH is easily debunked by his age and academic record. Especially given ClimateGate showed that older, wiser and now sadly deceased men like Briffa urged caution about making pretty extraordinary claims, that were later shown to be unsubstantiated.
But if you'd like to learn more, I suggest you try reading this-
https://climateaudit.org/2007/10/12/a-little-secret/
Don’t you think that someone on the Team might have been a little curious as to what bristlecone ring widths have done during the past 25 years? For this, we have the classic excuse of Michael Mann and the Team for not updating bristlecone and proxy records is that it’s not practical within the limited climate budgets:
While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations (such as high-elevation or remote polar sites). For historical reasons, many of the important records were obtained in the 1970s and 1980s and have yet to be updated.
From the first moment that I got involved with paleoclimate, it seemed obvious to me (as it is to anyone not on the Team) that, if the classic “proxies” are any good and not merely opportunistic correlations, that there is an ideal opportunity to perform out-of-sample testing of the canonical Team reconstructions by bringing the proxies up-to-date.
In which McIntyre, Holtzmann et al grabbed a coffee, wandered a short way off a hiking trail and collected some core samples.. That <drumroll> didn't show Mikey's classic Hockey Stick. But then his pre-screening would have thrown those results away if they did.
Get in contact with Insurance companies. The big ones, like Munich Re. Or ask Esso Oil! Both will tell you the reality you don't want to accept. Both will tell you they've known for > 50 years. Both will tell you the proof is real. For example by comparing the carbon isotope ratio of our current atmosphere with the one a few years or decades or two centuries ago, which is considered a hard proof it is men made. The results are real too, unless you live below several hundred yard of rock - possibly an old bunker with internet connection.
"For example by comparing the carbon isotope ratio of our current atmosphere with the one a few years or decades or two centuries ago, which is considered a hard proof it is men made. "
You mean a certain percentageo of CO2 is man-made and that's obvious. Still irrelevant as connection to global average temperature is missing: A formula. You know, the actual science part.
Should be trivial to make something like T= ak^z, where T is global average temperature, k is CO2 content and a and z experimentally defined constants. Or even better, derived from a theory. But of course there is no such thing either.
For some reason no-one has been able to create one, while claiming 'the connection is obvious'. Yea, prove it then.
Considering thousands of people with billions in cash are working on it, proving 'obvious connection' should not take 30 years. One year would be about right.
Numerical models won't do: Glorified extrapolation has no idea why something is happening. *Even* if it's right, like none of current or past models.
For some reason no-one has been able to create one, while claiming 'the connection is obvious'. Yea, prove it then.
Actually, there is.. which shows a derivation of TΔCO2, and is based on some reasonably sound physics, like standard reference models for atmosphere. I've cited it before, but holding off citing it now just in case any of the reality deniers can find it. Then it's back to the sensitivity question, and which assumptions wrt 'forcings and feedbacks' hard coded or parameterised into climate models might closest approximate reality. But thus far, for the majority of CO2 dogmatists, when models diverge from reality, it's obviously reality that's wrong. The UNEP and hangers-on really want their $100bn a year after all.
The hockey stick he predicted has been happening since.
Ah, the broken clock fallacy. The predictions were falsified, the mistakes identified, the declines safely hidden.. Which was an interesting one given some tree series had to have their records truncated because the most recent years showed a negative response. But trees still make perfectly fine high precision thermometers, right? Everyone knows this. Cherries make far better thermometers, and cheaper than platinum..
ps.. see also-
https://climateaudit.org/2024/06/02/tracing-the-esper-confidence-intervals/
As discussed in previous article, Esper et al (2024) link, the newest hockey stick diagram, asserted that 2023 was the “warmest summer” in millennia by an updated version of “Mike’s Nature trick” – by comparing 2023 instrumental temperature to purported confidence intervals of temperature estimates from “ancient tree rings” for the past two millennia. In today’s article, I will report on detective work on Esper’s calculations, showing that the article is not merely a trick, but a joke.
Background
Esper et al 2024 provided only a sketchy and incomplete description of methodology and negligible supporting data. Like Mann et al 1998.
So far, so normal for climate 'science', who's papers should probably be published in the Journal of Irreproducable Results. Not journals that normally insist on publishing and including supporting data..
"The hockey stick he predicted has been happening since."
No, not even near. It literally predicted +1.6C *per year* to global average. Pure BS.
What we actually have, is less than 2C cumulative and that's absolutely irrelevant change. Not only that, *all* climate models have been wrong about future, why would anyone believe any of them?
What you see is irrelevant: Anything can be made to look like hockey stick when you can choose the scale as you wish.
Defending one's own article is a sad admission that said article wasn't sufficiently convincing ... but ... hey ... here I go ...
I’ve got a couple of quick request for you folks who deny the reality of man-made climate change:
First, please disprove the simple and basic physics behind the absorption and re-radiation of the energy of long-wave radiation (IR) by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades. If it weren't for the Earth's greenhouse-gas blanket, simple physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body equations, for you fellow nerds out there) proves that the Earth's temperature would average about -15ºC. Thanks to those gasses (and, of course, water vapor), we average around 15°C globally — though that number has been steadily rising since mid-last century, and the rate of that rise is measurably increasing. What our rapid addition of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere is doing is mucking with that fine balance. We're cooking ourselves. No argument. Provable. Simple as pie, physically speaking.
Second, also explain how it's meaningless that this warming not only correlates quite smoothly with the steep increase in radiative-forcing CO2 in the troposphere in the last century, as well as being mathematically and demonstrably well-fitted through multiple well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses to prove that such other forcings as volcanoes, solar activity, aerosols, and other niceties can't account for the same global temperature rises.
Third, how about irrefutably disproving all of the easily correlated temperature measurements by multiple independent international sources, such as NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more. Y'know, the ones that unarguably prove that global temperatures are rising faster than at any other time that science can determine during the past 800,000 or so years.
You won't be able to answer those questions without conspiratorial silliness or unvetted analyses. Anthropogenically initiated climate change is a problem — a real, quantifiable, demonstrable, and most importantly solvable problem. Luckily, we humans are smart. We’re inventive. We’re innovative. We can fix it — if we hurry.
We can fix it, that is, as long as we understand, carefully examine, and vet the data-driven science, and don't confuse it with politics. Science is science — it's neither left nor right, neither conservative nor liberal. How we respond to the reality of global warming and its concomitant climate change ... well ... that's policy, not science — and as such it's well within the arguable political arena. So let's argue about that, shall we?
First, please disprove the simple and basic physics behind the absorption and re-radiation of the energy of long-wave radiation (IR) by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that re-radiation warms
And here we see the careful setting up of the straw men by a reality denier. There's no need to 'disprove' any simple and basic physics, because that physics has been known for a very long time. So the spectral characteristics and all that. I am, however curious what you think you mean by 'large' or 'active' molecules, or why you didn't also include H2O? Is that not a 'large' or 'active' molecule? I also deliberately snipped at 'warms', because I'm pretty certain that CO2 absorbing or emitting photons isn't unidirectional. It'll do that in a random direction, and assuming you're not also a flat earther, means most of those photons will miss the surface, or be radiated away back to space. And also glosses over that 3 of the 4 absorption wavelengths overlap with H2O, leaving only a very narrow 'atmospheric window' for CO2 to have any direct effect.
Which is the many trillion dollar effect, like exactly how much energy is that? It's easy enough to measure after all, ie a simple notch filter tuned to CO2's spectra could be installed in weather stations around the world to quantify this effect. They exist in space on the orbiting carbon observatories, but where are the ground based ones? But once the amount of CO2 'back radiation' is observed and quantified, then scientists may be able to compare that to energy flows via conduction, convection, evaporation that provide the vast bulk of energy transfers from surface to atmosphere and eventually space.
quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades.
Citation needed, along with quantifying what you mean by 'measurably cooling'? And by 'many decades', how many? Especially when 'climate' (rather than weather) requires data going back long before we could accurately, or reliably measure stratospheric temperatures, let alone produce any statistically significant trends.
If it weren't for the Earth's greenhouse-gas blanket, simple physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body equations, for you fellow nerds out there) proves that the Earth's temperature would average about -15ºC
And we're off to the races with the tired old nag that is the gish-gallop. In the beginning, the Earth was a black body. Then lo, S-B shone a light, and behold.. Probem is the Earth isn't a black-body, so S-B equations don't really apply given the Earth that exists outside of climate models is a blue-green oblate spheroid orbiting a variable star, with an axial tilt.. All of which leads to something else that exists outside models, ie weather, atmosphere and an ever changing albedo.
But by reductio ad absurdum, you cherry pick your opening argument based on a scenario that has never existed.
..though that number has been steadily rising since mid-last century, and the rate of that rise is measurably increasing. What our rapid addition of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere is doing is mucking with that fine balance. We're cooking ourselves. No argument. Provable. Simple as pie, physically speaking.
See.. this is the problem with reductio ad absurdum. Assume an Earth that should be -15C. Add GHG (mostly CO2, because that's easiest to make money from) and voila, 15C. Then assume this was somehow the 'equilibrium temperature', or an ideal temperature. Then ignore the MWP and LIA, which were warmer and colder than present. Then assume CO2 is the cause. Then try to figure out how CO2 could be responsible for both warming and cooling in the past, when there was much less of it.. Which is the homeopathic approach to CO2 dogma, where the less you have, the more it warms (how much warming per doubling of CO2 for the real nerds). Then to complicate matters further, how, given CO2 levels were far, far higher than today, we're not Venus already. Or why most living things evolved when CO2 levels were much higher than today, yet the Doomsday cultists think everything is going to die if CO2 levels increase a teeny bit more.
CO2 dogma is just logically inconsisent, physically speaking.
Second, also explain how it's meaningless that this warming not only correlates quite smoothly with the steep increase in radiative-forcing CO2 in the troposphere in the last century, as well as being mathematically and demonstrably well-fitted through multiple well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses
This is just another logical fallacy, the argument from authority. Trust me, I'm a climate scientist. Or IT journalist*. And maybe a bit of Freud thrown in when you say 'smoothly', because smoothing is a common presentation trick. As is cherry picking arbitary start dates like 1850. If you deny the LIA, this is less problematic because that coincides with the Industrial Revolution getting going, and the possibility that our atmosphere may have gotten slightly peturbed as a consequence. If you accept the LIA was real, global, and there's plenty of evidence for this.. Then warming following a well documented cold period should come as no suprise and be considered a good thing. Living conditions during the LIA were far from pleasent, and lead to things like the French Revolution. Or Napoleon's ill fated invasion of Russia.
But then you're also assuming we have reliable temperature records since 1850, and we don't. You're then ignoring things like 'The Pause', where temperatures refused to rise, despite CO2 levels increasing. But that's back to Newton. When there's a pause, that's normal because there's no simple correlation between CO2 and temperatures, but then when the pause ends, it correlates. CO2 really is a magical molecule.
Third, how about irrefutably disproving all of the easily correlated temperature measurements by multiple independent international sources, such as NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more. Y'know, the ones that unarguably prove that global temperatures are rising faster than at any other time that science can determine during the past 800,000 or so years.
Err.. right. So first off, there aren't really "multiple independent international sources", because there aren't really multiple, indpendent data sources spanning the globe. So all that happens is how sources choose, use and abuse those data to create their press releases. And when it comes to political animals like NASA GISS, somehow produce full-planet heat maps with hot spots often located hundreds or thousands of kilometres from the nearest weather station. Or there's the Met Office, where well over half their weather stations are improperly located per WMO standards, so should not be used for climatology. Or they include anomalies like RAF Coningsby caused by aircraft taking off because by leaving it in the datasets, it's going to bump up the averages.
Oh, and I'm fairly sure none of those agencies existed 800,000 years ago, nor did satellites or platinum resistance thermometers. Bonus points if you can tell everyone when those were introduced, making temperature measurements more reliable than a volunteer reading a wet-bulb thermometer and copying it into a logbook. Or perhaps not because the observer didn't fancy trudging out to the weather station and made up the reading, little knowing that in the future, their observations would spawn a multi-trillion dollar industry. So 'easily correlated temperature measurements' is one of the biggest lies you seem to believe in. There were no accurate thermometers, so your 800ka temperature record comprises of a slice of ice, a pinch of lake sediment, diluted with some borehole water and a slice of wood floating on top.. And of course the amount of water displaced would allow you to convert your wood to temperature, and only temperature.
Or, recognising that 800ka normally means 'Vostok', I could ask you why you think (from memory) 32 slices of ice present a decent resolution temperature record, especially when the temporal resolution wouldn't show events like the MWP, LIA etc and the spatial resolution is a single location. From which you probably think you can decide the temperature (or climate) of an entire planet.. And then of course Vostok, along with other ice cores show CO2 levels lagging warming, which is to be expected given the vast majority of CO2 is emitted by the biosphere, not humans.
Effect preceeding cause just isn't normal for science, except climate 'science'. But such is politics. The UNEP wants $100bn a year to spend the same way it managed money during the UN's 'Oil for Food' programme, except the cheques to scammers like Maurice Strong will be much bigger. Well, not Strong on account of he dying after creating the UNEP to be the new cash cow & slush fund.
@Jellied Ell -You're obviously much cleverer and better informed than the people who have spent their lives researching climate and weather, with many ingenious explanations for why we should ignore those people, and the evidence of our own senses, that there is a problem here. And of course, it's always worth looking at the motives of people who make claims. You firmly believe that climate scientists are making this stuff up for money.
So what do you think is the motivation of the oil companies, whose own scientists predicted 40 years ago that burning fossil fuels would eventually cause climate problems, in suppressing their own research and funding obfuscation of the science with the kind of clever arguments you are using? Are you actually a shill for said oil companies, or just one of the people they hoodwinked?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032125000322
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64241994
You can find plenty of other articles about this, it won't be hard for someone with your galaxy sized brain.
In other words, the people who make the money out of fossil fuels have their own research indicating that burning said fuel is going to cause problems. And they've tried to suppress it, and to ridicule other people who've made the same discovery.
You're obviously much cleverer and better informed than the people who have spent their lives researching climate and weather, with many ingenious explanations for why we should ignore those people, and the evidence of our own senses.
Ah, well, that's really quite simple. What do you mean by the 'evidence of our own senses'? Do you mean you wake up, check the Mauna Loa figures and think 'Yup, it's going to be a hot one today!', then trudge outside into the snow, which Dr Viner once told us was going to be a thing of the past, a rare and exciting event, and that kids wouldn't know what snow looked like.
Senses have little to do with science (outwith branches of science that specifically study senses) and far more to do with emotion. Science and engineering traditionally relied on cold, hard facts and data that often aren't present in climate 'science'. Hypothesis, experiment, results, conclusion. But a wise man once said-
"One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.' ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."
So once upon a time, there was a bitter little Mann who changed his Phd focus to the quiet and narrow field of dendrophrenology. I mean dendrochronology. Simple idea. Trees grow rings, density of the wood in each ring gives you some idea of the growth conditions for that specific tree, in that specific location for that specific year. So far, so plausible. Then came the cunning plan that the trees were actually just recording temperature, and to two or three decimal places. And a tree growing on the Yamal Peninsular could reliably tell you the temperature in Basingstoke. Which is where the senses came in. Thanks to the miracle of lobbying and PR.. The infamous Hockey Stick was everywhere. And I sensed bullshit, because the 'blade' was so exagerated, and it seemed to have overlooked past, well recorded and documented, wide-spread events like the RWP, MWP and LIA.
So I became a sceptic, started reading more (a lot more) on the subject, and discovered that yep, it was utter bullshit. Bad science throughout and an extremely defensive (and offensive) little Mann, plus acolytes who attacked anyone who dared question the authority of Mann and his Hockey Team. Then along came ClimateGate, and a peek behind the curtains with far more experienced dendrochronologists also questioning the conclusions, but the pressure was on to 'present a tidy story', and thus the MWP or LIA just had to be erased from the history books. Maths and stats professors were just WRONG! because how dare they question the Tree Ring Circus.
That simply isn't how science is supposed to work. Publish, and don your flak jacket. And of course climate sceptics became 'deniers' because of the Holocaust connotations, and after the PR types realised scientists and supposed to be sceptics.
And they've tried to suppress it, and to ridicule other people who've made the same discovery.
Yep, that's exactly how climate 'science' has worked. You're a believer, or a denier, pick a side. You'll have a much easier life, especially as a working scientist if you simply swallow your principles and go along with the dogma, because you will be attacked if you dare challenge the 'consensus'. Of course the same is true for people like Mann, but then they arguably deserved it for being deliberately obstructive and offensive, in the face of pretty overwhelming evidence that his Hockey Stick was, in fact bullshit.
"You firmly believe that climate scientists are making this stuff up for money."
Nonono! Too simple.
Money *and* fame. And out of those two, fame *is a lot more* important. Also: that's not a belief, it's an observable fact. If you haven't noticed, you haven't been paying attention.
See Mr. Mann: How much fame can be found by inventing BS stories and calling it science.
Yeah, next thing you say "Carl Sagan lied to congress" riiiiight...
You may have him confused with James Hansen, who certainly did.. Along with many other people during is tenure at NASA GISS. Plus got jetted in at considerable expense by neo-luddites to give 'evidence' at a judicial review into the proposed construction of a new coal power station at Kingsnorth. Objection successful, Kingsnorth closed, around 3,000 jobs lost and we built windmills instead. Such is progress.
But Hansen's testimony was interesting because if you read it, he presented his life's work, comparing Venus to Earth and concluding we're hotter because we grow bananas. I mean the other way around, so not bananas, but Venus has more CO2. And a lot more atmosphere in general. And in the rush to fixate on CO2, some physics got glossed over, like the relationship between temperature and pressure. So he presented a very simple model that showed 3 emission scenarios, and a warming prediction based on each. We burn a lot more carbon, temperature rise would be the highest. This model was very quickly falsified.
Yet if you go check the source of most climate misinformation, SkS, or the badly named 'Skeptical Science*', you'll probably find they still have a 'fact checker' claiming that if you squint a bit, 1 of the 3 model predictions kinda, sorta matches reality. But then that was the graph for an emission scenario that showed a drastically reduced use of fossil fuels. For emission scenarios that are closer to reality, the model ran far too hot. The output was entirely unrelated to the input, but those are just the kinds of lies reality deniers use to trick the gullible and hard of thinking. They're also the useful idiots behind most of the whole '97%' meme.
*They really didn't like being referred to as 'SS', even though they were more than happy to throw around the 'denier' thing. Being named after a cheap Russian rifle with highly variable quality is better optics I guess.
"Third, how about irrefutably disproving all of the easily correlated temperature measurements by multiple independent international sources, such as NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more."
Given that some of the UK Met Office numbers come from weather stations that DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST, I'm going to take all that with one giant pinch of salt.
"disprove the simple and basic physics behind the absorption and re-radiation of the energy of long-wave radiation (IR) by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O"
Achh, classic mislead as an opener. You omitted H2O, why?
Also, grouping CO2 as similar than CH4 is a blatant lie and you know it: As a greenhouse gas CO2 basically irrelevant (<1% of potency of CH4) and that's easy to measure.Which obviously you haven't.
H2O is the most common and most potent greenhouse gas and anyone who omits it, is just gaslighting people by pseudoscience. How much they pay you for it or do you actually believe the BS you spew? Why?
"Second, also explain how it's meaningless that this warming not only correlates quite smoothly with the steep increase in radiative-forcing CO2 in the troposphere in the last century, as well as being mathematically and demonstrably well-fitted through multiple well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses"
"quite smoothly" is not a correlation. And a numerical model fits well to the data you use to make it, naturally. It still doesn't *prove* anything at all, specifially not the future.
Explain why *every one* of so called 'analysis' are and have been wrong so far?
"well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses"
I.e. IPCC and cult of climatologists approved. In this case, irrelevant. Climatologists even claim that astronomers are wrong anytime their facts won't fit into cult dogma. That's really pathetic.
None of above is actual science: Where's the proven theory and formula defining the 'obvious' connection between temperature and CO2-content?
What you actually have is a hypothesis and numerical models made to support it. I.e. a lot of noise dressed in scientific looking suit. Fools a common man, but it doesn't fool a scientist: Proper pseudoscience.
That's not a lot and not even science yet: The formula and theory to support it would be science. But climatologists don't understand either, they just hallucinate.
All of this aside of warming, of course: It's about 'why' -part and the politics of climatology: "There's money to be made."
The reality is also that 2 degrees C increase is absolutely irrelevant and paleontologists laugh their as***s off. Try +25C and then we're talking. (Which has happened, BTW)
Now tell us why IPCC-funded climatologist cult burned all the heretics in early 00s? Just for the money?
Because there is no science without heretics poking cultists with a stick.
" irrefutably disproving all of the easily correlated temperature measurements "
Since 1980 or so, yes. Again, pure half-truth and irrelevant. "Medieval warm period" lasted hundreds of years, remember Vikings in Greenland? Why it is not another 'warm period' now? Can you explain the *previous* warm period? So far no-one has even tried, because they can't.
But claiming that you have any temperature data 800 000 years back is absolute BS: You don't. You don't have even average CO2 content since last ice age, but one measurement point in Arctic. If you actually believe any of that, I've couple of paleontologists who'll laugh to your face.
Bullsh**ng people won't make it true, you know?
Why, he only relied upon Mann and the other narrow-minded.
I didn't want you to be disappointed, but 20°F warmer because it seems to me that all of the calculations appear to posit that the temperature near the end of an ice age should be the basis temperature going forward.
Read the establishing papers for the Energy Balance Model? I have. At least Sellers was honest and upfront about the gross simplifications in the model. Budyko never was. He was a politically motivated crank hydrologist making outrageous unsupported assertions.
The "climate scientists" all ignore these gross simplifications which invalidates the claimed accuracy of all the models built on top.
Familiar with the geophysical heat cycle? That makes the temp of the surface of the earth 9C / 11C and provides most of the extra energy needed for the ocean temp of 16C.
The "climate scientists" ignore all geophysics and assume the surface temp is 0 Kelvin in their models. The Black Body Temperature. As if the earth was as dead as the Moon. So their assumed Atmospheric Forcing Constant is not 33 Kelvin but maybe closer to 4 Kelvin. Max. Which pretty much invalided all the claims made for their models. Given the models cumulative errors are larger than any potential Atmospheric Forcing effect.
And then is there is the fact that the "climate scientists" models solutions totally ignore the many (and well known) problems with PDE numerical solutions over long t intervals. Making claims that are just not supported by the actual long term stability and accuracy of the numerical solutions for any particular model run
And so on.
"Climate science" is total b*llocks as science. Just like Lysenkoism was. The last political motivated "scientific" mass delusion.
As for why SoCal burned. Its fire county. Its burned for the last 9 thousand years. And CARB and CalEPA passing lots of regulations that allowed a build up of very large fuel loads over many decades just means you now have huge immensely destructive fires rather than many small ones. This was known by the local native tribes. This was known by the Californios and the ranchers. But CARB/ CalEPA think reality it does not apply to them. And thats why California burns. The idiots in Sacramento and their eco-fantasies.
Got absolutely nothing to do with the "climate change". Whatever that might mean.
And then is there is the fact that the "climate scientists" models solutions totally ignore the many (and well known) problems with PDE numerical solutions over long t intervals. Making claims that are just not supported by the actual long term stability and accuracy of the numerical solutions for any particular model run.
To be fair, some climate scientists don't ignore the facts. Problem is if they speak out of church, then they're ostracised and shunned by the cult because there's just so much money and ego at stake. Like you say, it's a wicked problem to solve, and the reality is horrifically complicated. But given the technology we have, climate models are forced to use crude approximations of reality. And the reality is to do it right, 'all' we'd need to do is create CFD models that could accurately reflect the realities of both ocean and atmospheric fluid process, all the heat transfers on a planetary scale and for 100yrs.
Some things are improving, ie the combination of tech and skill means medium range forecast models can use more physics, and are producing more skillful results. But that's adding days to dependable forecasts, not decades. They're also slowly improving in climate science thanks to reanalysis, but still highly uncertain. There is more certainty that climate sensitivity is low wrt CO2, which is problematic for the cult because when models predicted 3C warming, that might have negative consequences. Now it's shown to be probably around 1.5/doubling or less, it's drifted to where the IPCC actually states that mild warming and elevated CO2 is actually beneficial to most of the world. CO2 fertilisation, improved crop yields, reduced water demans and the 'Greening of the Earth'.
But understanding that there is no 'Climate Emergency' means there's less need to tilt at windmills, or bow to all the demands for social change that are pushed hard by the climate cultists.
Then there are all the other model problems. So 'scientists say.. ' based on crude model assumptions, or plain errors. Those announcements are shotgunned out by PR & lobbying/activist outfits like this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services
That became the 'Science Communication Network' that promote 'science' to a willing media, who run the stories and don't possess the knowledge, critical thinking skills or objectivity to recognise that the press releases sound like utter bollocks. Then rarely publish corrections when the inevitable errata or retractions happen. Even if they do, the damage is already done because the hype has already happened, and the fear level maintained.
"To be fair, some climate scientists don't ignore the facts. Problem is if they speak out of church, then they're ostracised and shunned by the cult because there's just so much money and ego at stake."
One of my pet peeves: Cult of IPCC burned heretics at stake in late 1990s and early 00s and since then only loyal cultists are left.
You need to go to minor cults to see as aggressive and relentless purge of anyone who dared to doubt whatever IPCC and cultists were spewing. This article is a brilliant example of that.
Literally opposite of science, a cult. And, as usual, they vehemently deny it's a cult. They cant' change the facts, though.
"ridicule this research by many informed scientists,"
You need to provide actual science to be called scientist: Reseach is *not* science, per se. Not yet: It *can* lead to science.
Commenter seems to have serious problems of knowing what is science: In science you have proven theories , which lead to proven formulas. Research doesn't provide either of these key elements: No proven theory and no formula at all. Therefore not science.
Also, 'research' using a numerical model you made yourself is literally circular logic: You made the model, you made the results and then present results as 'science'.
Which part of that is too hard to understand?
Numerical model gives literally the results you want. Any time when you can make a model as you wish. As is the case in climatology.
Warming *was* obvious, but please, do not call this BS 'science'. It is not. On the contrary: These clowns have no clue whatsoever. And it shows.
Yeah, what has science ever done for your. Controlling fire? Not needed. Building houses? Making ACs? Electricity? Roads? Cars? Planes? Trains? Clean tap water (USA: depends on region, Europe almost everywhere)? Sewers? Sewage Plants? Wine? Beer? How to cook/boil/fry? Pah, you don't need all that stuff. Especially not the Internet on a computer, with a display using quantum effects (both CRT tube up to the newest OLED are technically quantum-Einstein-how-does-light-really-work effects - even light bulbs are).
"
Yeah, what has science ever done for your."
Science is useful, but poor examples: None of those are a numerical models which produce literally whatever you want. Not only that, no-one has one which predicts even next year correctly.
And the error is cumulative: In 50 years error will be so large whole model is pure BS. The makers of course know it but no money if no 'new, improved model'. Simple?
I was sitting in St Pancras station this week, and this guy, maybe late 20s, started ranting about how AI is the future, net zero is bankrupting the country, and they need to burn coal or whatever it takes to make AI happen. Then he talked about meeting Tory MPs, how he has an invitation to parliament, and that he's going to demand they build a data centre in Bedfordshire. I knew such people existed, but it was still scary to actually encounter one.
"otherwise you'll have Reform in government before you know it."
Sad to say, that will be at the next election. Farage (or his Putinist surrogate) will be Prime Minister.
That is what current polling predicts. Right-wing lies and propaganda have already swayed voters, (as I foresaw) and it'll get worse.
Will we get the opportunity thereafter to vote them out?
Sea level rise is a major concern in Bangladesh, but not so much in the USA, except for the eastern Coastal Plains (and Manhattan). Also Bangladesh is very much a victim of climate change while the USA is more of a "perpetratot" at present (and regressively lacking in innovation leadership and resolve on this topic). So, not a direct analogy IMHO.
"If you think climate change is a problem, go talk to China.
Yup. We have this smallish country in Northern EU and I read an article last summer which claimed China is building new coal power plants equal to total energy production of this country every *week*.
So 50* times per year, *new* coal plants. It's absolutely irrelevant what we do compared to that.
Funny thing, not a single environmentalist cares about that: It's me who has to produce less CO2 'to save the globe'.
These laws say, no matter what you do, everything you do generates waste heat.
One way to combat this is to just never get out of bed again. Just kill yourself. That'll work. A bit extreme, though.
However, you can also move what you do to somewhere else, like low earth orbit or Mars.
You can also put up a sun shield so we don't absorb as much heat, giving us a budget where we can generate heat but it's not damaging.
I don't think trying to use less fuel and energy is going to work though. This is just a less extreme version of my first solution.
For example: "Will those AC energy needs be met in such a way as to not exacerbate the climate crisis that is exacerbating the heatwaves in the first place?"
No, because running the AC uses energy over and above the cooling it provides. It just moves your heat PLUS ITS OWN HEAT somewhere else. You are cooled, but the net heat in the environment goes up.
That's why the AC should run on reneable. Solar is my preference - easiest to setup, easiest to maintain, not many parts, no moving parts... And the rest of the roof, which is not user for solar, should be "Purdue Ultra White" - I think I can be bought already.
I did paint my balcony (wall and floor) white a few years ago, and a few other brown colored tin things. The difference can be enormous, 60°C brown tin to 40°C just painted cheapest acryl-based white. Same for the balcony floor: It was to hot to walk on in summer, now no problem. I cannot paint the roof white since I don't own that alone...
I did paint my balcony (wall and floor) white a few years ago, and a few other brown colored tin things. The difference can be enormous, 60°C brown tin to 40°C just painted cheapest acryl-based white. Same for the balcony floor: It was to hot to walk on in summer, now no problem.
Yep, some people are finally catching up to the past. Strange the way that for centuries, people living in hot climates have lived in white houses. Often with small windows, and sometimes with cunning 'central AC', like evaporative and convective cooling from underground water supplies, as were built in Iran centuries ago. Now, with our modern understanding of 'science', Californians think building Mc Mansions with lots of big windows is a good idea. People that live in glass/greenhouses shouldn't complain about their AC bills.
But painting walls and stuff white is a very simple and effective way to reduce solar heating, along with those AC bills.
>Global warming is predicted by the laws of thermodynamics
No, it is not.
The amount of heat directly generated by human activities is lower than the heat Earth receives from solar radiation by four orders of magnitude. Random sun output fluctuations that we can barely notice are bigger than that.
Even a slight increase in solar radiation retention, such as the one that may be caused by a little bit more CO2 in the atmosphere, will dwarf the one resulting from thermodynamics alone.
Get rid of the greenhouse gases, and the extra heat problem is gone. If we produced all energy with no carbon emissions, then everyone on Earth could consume at 10x USA-level, and it still wouldn't raise temperatures.
The thermodynamics argument is just an excuse to justify continuing emissions, by attempting to paint the fight as useless. It is not, and the argument is bunk.
The simplest, cheapest and most effective solution is to plant a shit load more trees. Humanity has cut down something like 3 trillion. Even if we stopped generating all CO2 now, it's still in the atmosphere.
Plant a trillion trees over the next few decades, CO2 is removed from the atmosphere as they grow. That CO2 is locked away as the trees or as useful, usable lumber.
No need to try forcing massive social change on the entire planet. No need for expensive solutions that don't actually seem to be solving anything. No need for pointless "carbon credits" and all the trading shenanigans that goes with them.
And before anyone says that's impossible, drone-based planting and automation takes the human labour out of the equation.
There is money in planting trees, but not short term. Owning the trees you can sell for homes and furniture. On nation scale level even more win.
But pleaseavoid the mono culture problem, and choose trees which can take some heat. There are famous national parks that prove which trees work.
Trees are not enough. They cannot absorb as much and as fast as we produce CO², even if we fill every possible gap and deserts. But we need to plant them anyway, 'cause removing a percentage of CO² is better than doing nothing at all.
The social change, you want to avoid, is needed on top. Especially in some well-known energy wasteful society. Yes, I am looking at you, west-ponders!
The "needed" social change is why it hasn't happened. Asking billions of people to accept a markedly reduced quality of life is a guaranteed vote loser. This is why it's being forced in slowly.
Look at the ICE vehicle mandates for instance. Only those don't work either, because not everyone can, wants to, or is able to live with an electric car. Most people that want one, can afford one, and have the space to charge it conveniently, already run one. The mandates are already panicking the car manufacturers, and we're only at the beginning. Pushing ahead will put a lot of manufacturers out of business, leading to mass unemployment as the resulting supply chains and collateral industries collapse. Another vote killer. One the governments hoped would be someone elses' problem in the future, except it's biting now.
Look at the green energy push, with no thought to how the grid can handle things, what happens when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Trillions of ££££ needed for transmission infrastructure and storage, but no money to fund it. So we push on regardless, needing gas peaker plants to fill in the gaps, and help keep the grid stable.
So even forcing it slowly won't work.
Mass tree planting is cheap, effective, you can plant fast growing species that can lock up tonnes per year per tree, which are still suitable for construction lumber.
But as someone said above, where's the money in that. All the carbon schemes are just a wheeze for someone to make money. They don't actually solve anything. CO2 production is at best moved around. Never reduced. Tree planting can have a return as a lumber investment, but not on the timescales investors demand.
@Jimmy2Cows
"Mass tree planting is cheap, effective, you can plant fast growing species that can lock up tonnes per year per tree, which are still suitable for construction lumber."
The difference between your suggestion and the massive insanity pushed from the cult of the nutters is yours makes sense. Planting trees sounds like a workable solution, which means no crisis and so not taxing us back to the stone age with hypocritical prophets of doom calling us all sinners. Hard to have a cult when a simple solution defeats the claimed problem.
"Plant a trillion trees over the next few decades"
That's impossible.
Land area of the earth is 150 million square kilometres. 1 trillion trees is about 7000 trees per square kilometre, or about 81 trees per linear kilometre, or one tree every 12m.
12m spacing between each tree doesn't feel wrong but still feels quite dense for mature trees (that need to be self sustaining and not managed as cash crops). And that's assuming we cover every bit of land with a tree every 12m - every desert, every Antarctic ice field, every mountain peak, every exposed piece of rock. Remove all habitations to make room for the trillion trees. If only 10% of land can support trees, then the density is a tree every 4 cm. Impossible.
The trillion trees isn't too far off though. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are at about 35bn tonnes per year. A fully grown tree absorbs about 25kg of carbon dioxide per year (very variable according to species, location etc). That works out to about 0.14 trillion mature trees.
Carbon capture by tree planting is not a long term solution by itself. Eventually the carbon comes back out as the trees die and decompose. In fact it may make things worse as a tree absorbs carbon dioxide as it grows but emits methane as it dies - methane being about 21 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. And this happens every year as trees grow leaves which then fall and rot.
It's got me wondering how much of that 25kg of carbon dioxide absorbed by a mature tree every year comes straight back out as leaves decay and rot. Even if only about 1kg of methane is emitted by rotting leaves, then it achieves nothing in terms of carbon reduction.
"You are cooled, but the net heat in the environment goes up."
You're right, but it misses the main cause of climate change. Climate change due to global temperature increases is not due to us turning energy into heat at the earth's surface. It's due to the solar radiation hitting the earth's surface, warming that up, but then that heat not being able to radiate back out into space (the short wavelength radiation from the sun passes through the atmosphere, but the long wavelength radiation from the warming ground does not). The earth has always had this greenhouse effect but the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that we have pumped out the last few hundred years has increased that greenhouse effect to the point that the earth is now noticeably getting warmer.
Painting a house white will radiate some of that short wavelength solar radiation back before it can warm up the house and turn that energy into the long wavelengths that get trapped, but the effect on global temperature by doing that is negligible and not the solution to climate change. White global ice caps do the same, but they are getting smaller due to the warming earth, creating a horrible positive feedback loop (more heat means less ice means more solar radiation absorbed means more heat means ...). It's still a good thing to do as it reduces your air-conditioning demand though and in turn your energy demand. And while our energy demands are still met by burning fossil fuels, climate change will keep on happening.
We can fix it — if we hurry.
Who are you kidding? Have you been paying attention to what has been done about climate change in the past 25+ years? The global use of fossils have been increasing year on year, regardless of any facts.
Our human race will be racing to hit the proverbial wall with ever increasing speed. As an individual we may be smart, but as a group we are as dumb as fuck.
Now, where is my ticktackbookfacetube to play that video of ultimate doom? I need to see it with my own eyes on my phone or it didn't happen.
I live in a region (southern Germany) where climate change is happening, but the long term consequences are not as dramatic as in many other region. Yea, heat is getting more, but IMHO manageable compared to other parts of the world. Possible it might get colder within the next ten years too, depending on the time of the year and the ocean flow changes currently developing.
So, while we are frigged, I don't have to move away like others will have to.
Fix "in a hurry" no way. Greed and local short term thinking has won for ~125 years - this is how long we already know about the effect. But I am prepared here, more solar will be on the roof soon so if I have to upgrade the AC, it will run for free most of the time. Everybody who can should do, and within German a LOT who can do (thanks to our current government, this was one of the things done mostly right, easing up on regulations).
>So, while we are frigged, I don't have to move away like others will have to.
Same here. But the people who do have to move away will move here, and the general attitude about migration is not exactly good right now. There's also the small matter of growing crops for food.
The weather won't kill many Europeans, but the climate wars might.
This post has been deleted by its author
It's the murder of the many by the few, for profit.
But don't worry.
The planet has survived at least five Extinction Level Events (and double that in minor terms, where <90% of all species are wiped out).
If planet Earth had a voice all it would say to the extinction of the human race is "Meh."
Indeed, or as I put it: the Earth has enough time for 2 full Cambrian cycles before the sun gets too hot.
That's pretty much "from nothing but extremophiles and whatever survived Snowball Earth to us".
And it's likely there will be more lifeforms surviving than that: cockroaches, rats, and, I'm almost certain, smug cats, somehow.
> You may have heard some foofaraw in recent news about how climate scientists don't know exactly why the Earth is heating as quickly as it quite demonstrably is. This minor niggle doesn't mean that climate models are crap. It merely means that those models have been a bit too conservative, and that there are likely climatological elements that haven't yet been taken fully into account.
The outputs of models were selected for lower values, and higher values were discarded. Primarily it was because the lower half of the predictions were just alarming. The upper half are lethal.
This was for largely political/social reasons, but it does mean that the IPCC reports were based on the means of the low predictions, and not the actual mean of predictions.
This was happening from the '90s, and the deficiency was known and discussed. Looks like it was right.
Oh, that's the beauty of all models. If they say "ur fucked" and you want to verify it, just wait until Ur Fucked or not.
Unfortunately, if the answer does turn out to be Ur Fucked, I'm not entirely sure what the plan is.
Still. At least you owned the libs, and that's all that baby Jesus asks of you.
". It merely means that those models have been a bit too conservative, and that there are likely climatological elements that haven't yet been taken fully into account."
BS. It means their models are crap, literally. Which also means *they don't have a clue*.
When engineers make numerical models, they are correct or the person making them is fired. Obviously doesn't apply to climatologists.
Invent 'new elements' every time CO2-based predictions won't work? But still insist it's because of CO2 *and nothing else*. Nice. But not science.
It 'merely means' 'gimme more money to make another model'. No more, no less. No science involved.
Only shit-for-brains denialists obsess solely about CO2.
I actually agree with you on that. Here's an example-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyjk92w9k1o
The world's warming is due to emissions of planet-heating gases from human activities - mainly the burning of fossil fuels - but scientists say they cannot fully explain why last month was particularly hot.
The Bbc certainly obsesses about CO2, and even quotes Schmidt-for-brains who once wrote a paper proclaiming CO2 was the planetary thermostat control knob, but then later denied it.
A possible partial explanation is sulphur in the atmosphere helped form more reflective clouds.
Sulphur reduction as a part of acid-rain reduction --> fewer reflective clouds --> more absorbance to ground --> trapped by CO2 following re-emission.
The fact the life of CO2 is listed as 300-1000* years should tell you there are some fairly large gaps in the chemistry of what's going on.
Unfortunately they are saying that in fact the models are giving us the best case scenarios.**
*Think about that. CO2 molecules from fires somewhere from 1725 back to 1025 are still causing trouble today and if we let "nature" take it's course stuff we do now will be here 2325-3025
**And some Aholes (I'm looking at you Saudi state oil company) want to make more faster.
A possible partial explanation is sulphur in the atmosphere helped form more reflective clouds.
There are a lot of partial explanations. So the introduction of Clean Air Acts reduced smog and increased insolation. Funnily enough, pretty much at the same time as we started to get 'Global Warming'. Solar variability also affects the amount of energy, but CO2 is far, far more profitable. Then of course there's cherry picking 1850 as the start date to measure CO2-induced 'Global Warming'.. But then-
There are, of course, some climate-change denialists who argue, "But there have always been wildfires, just like there have always been changes in the Earth's weather. What's new?"
Our approach to dealing with them, or not dealing with the conditions that cause wildfires, ie poor land management. But there are reality denialists that ignore all those inconvenient truths. Meanwhile climate sceptics point those out, but get shouted down by the reality deniers like good'ol Michael Mann. He's the cherry-picker extraordinaire who produced Hockey Sticks using bad math, and propelled to fame and fortune by Fenton Communications. He also denies events like the MWP and LIA actually happened, despite the abundant evidence that they did. But models can't predict them when they hindcast, because they're fixated on CO2. And of course the LIA ended around 1850, so conveniently provided a cold period to start measuring 'Global Warming'. By denying the past, reality deniers claim to be able to predict the future. So a GIGO problem combined with just the wicked problem of trying to predict the weather on a planetary scale over 100yr intervals.
But fires are interesting. California has regular droughts, followed by rain, then drought again. Stuff grows during wet periods, dries during dry and burns. The cycle of life continues. Allow fuel loads to build up, don't construct fire breaks and fires happen. But that's CO2, not a man-made mismanagement problem. And predictably, this happens again-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineapple_Express#California,_February_2024
At least we can argue that CO2 obeys Newton's Third Law. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. So CO2 causes droughts, it follows that in keeping with the Third Law, it must also cause floods. It warms, then it cools. It's just physics, right? And CO2. Always CO2.. which of course also causes reality inversions where causation means correlation, even when the observed data doesn't show this. CO2 follows warming in ice cores. Effect precedes cause, just as the rain follows the plough. Trust 'the science', not the evidence because the high priests of the Cult of Global Warming depend on it to maintain their livelihoods.
Strange the way that if the 'science is settled', we're still wasting so much money on that, and not diverting it to adaptation and mitigation. But then if the planet follows the normal cycles of warming and cooling, assuming and adapting to warming might mean we're wasting money on the wrong problem. And of course getting people to insulate their homes and reduce ventilation is good, if the future is cooling.. but does that really make sense if it's warming. Might increase those heat related (or poor ventilation related) deaths, so climate 'scientists' can point at excess mortality figures and claim they were right.
I waded through their verbiage.
Your comment is a succinct description of my reaction also.
Here's the thing. We know the science is incomplete (just as the climate science group at Exxon knew their results were based on incomplete chemistry* in the 1970's)
We also know the projected outcomes are very serious. Polar ice cap melting is estimated to submerge everything below 20m. For US readers check out FL, LA and New Orleans.
That assumes a linear rise in temperature, but raised water vapour (and water vapour is a massive GHG) will have non-linear effects as well.
The fact is a f**kload of people (many whose jobs depend on burning fossil fuels) money or lifestyle would have to change and they would literally prefer to die (or rather, as they think let someone else die) rather than give up, in any way, shape or form how they live. This started with the CEO of Exxon in the 1970's.
*The fact that CO2 atmospheric lifetime is 300-1000 yrs tells anyone that much. But not the best case is 3 centuries IOW even the best case spells trouble.
Here's the thing. We know the science is incomplete (just as the climate science group at Exxon knew their results were based on incomplete chemistry* in the 1970's)
Here's the thing. We're constantly told that the 'science is settled' and we need to Act Now! and just hand over $100bn a year to the UNEP to spaff.
We also know the projected outcomes are very serious. Polar ice cap melting is estimated to submerge everything below 20m. For US readers check out FL, LA and New Orleans.
And for everyone, anywhere, try this simple experiment. Take a glass of whiskey. Add some ice. Watch the ice melt, and flood your coffee table. Or not. If the polar ice cap, ie north pole melts, then it won't raise sea levels cos it's mostly floating. There are, of course exceptions like the ice mass on Greenland which has just been melting slowly and uncovering evidence of human activity. But ice melting is just something entirely expected following the last Ice Age.
But we're doomed, Doomed I tell you! Now, about that $100bn a year. When can we expect that? There's shopping to be done..
That assumes a linear rise in temperature, but raised water vapour (and water vapour is a massive GHG) will have non-linear effects as well.
Uhuh. Do you.. actually know the assumed relationship between CO2 and temperature? Y'know, the expected temperature rise per doubling of CO2? I know this part can be very confusing when CO2 can be responsible for warming, cooling, rains, droughts, storms, dunkleflaute and as climate 'experts' like the Bbc would tell you, pretty much every weather event. It really is a rather miraculous 'large' and 'active' molecule.
The fact is a f**kload of people (many whose jobs depend on burning fossil fuels) money or lifestyle would have to change and they would literally prefer to die (or rather, as they think let someone else die) rather than give up, in any way, shape or form how they live.
The fact is a f**kload of people, many of whose jobs depend on subsidies and grants would have to change their lifestyles, if we don't Act NOW! and hand over that $100bn a year. Being a climate activist and doomsday cultist isn't cheap you know. Superglue and cans of soup don't grow on trees. And of course they would literally prefer other people to die because they're in energy poverty and can't afford to heat their homes.
So about that $100bn a year..
>Strange the way that if the 'science is settled', we're still wasting so much money on that, and not diverting it to adaptation and mitigation.
Well that would be because those who believe that we should not take any action until after something has happened and subsequently been proven to have happened, to whatever infeasibly high standard of proof they demand today, keep dragging on those people who prefer to just get on and do things and improve things, and prepare for the future.
Unfortunately for the fading US, China's government is not amongst them.
Well that would be because those who believe that we should not take any action until after something has happened and subsequently been proven to have happened, to whatever infeasibly high standard of proof they demand today,
Nope. The science is 'settled', so we know exactly how much warming there'll be per doubling of CO2. Here's a link, but it's wiki and doesn't actually cite the core paper-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Factors_that_determine_sensitivity
The radiative forcing caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (from the pre-industrial 280 ppm) is approximately 3.7 watts per square meter (W/m2). In the absence of feedbacks, the energy imbalance would eventually result in roughly 1 °C (1.8 °F) of global warming. That figure is straightforward to calculate by using the Stefan–Boltzmann law and is undisputed
So ok, one of the citations wiki uses is disputed, because it comes from Rahmstorf, of Rahmstorf Smoothing fame, but it's generally accepted that 1°C per doubling is probably about right. So as CO2 rises from 280-560ppmv, there'll be 1°C, then from 560-1120ppmv, there'll be another 1°C, so by the time CO2 hits 2240ppmv, we'll have 3°C and might have to start worrying. We know roughly how much fossil fuel we burn, so how much CO2 that will add. We know that the vast majority of CO2 added (and removed) from the atmosphere by the carbon cycle, and that natural CO2 levels rise as a result of warming, but the uncertainty range is huge, ie +/- gigatonnes.
But glossing over the uncertainty, we 'know' that roughly 160ppmv increase since 1850 is all our fault because we industrialised and rolled with coal, and obsoleted wind energy. But that gives a potential run-rate, so X gigatonnes produced all (really part) of that 160ppmv, leading to 1°C (ish) warming because the physics says this is how it must be. But this presents a.. slight problem for CO2 dogmatists, like where are all the fossil fuels needed to increase CO2 to 1120ppmv, raising the temperature by a terrifying 2°C?
But fear not, climate 'scientists' have the solution to that limitation-
A further contribution arises from climate feedbacks, both self-reinforcing and balancing. The uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates is entirely from the modelling of feedbacks in the climate system, including water vapour feedback, ice–albedo feedback, cloud feedback, and lapse rate feedback. Balancing feedbacks tend to counteract warming by increasing the rate at which energy is radiated to space from a warmer planet. Exacerbating feedbacks increase warming; for example, higher temperatures can cause ice to melt, which reduces the ice area and the amount of sunlight the ice reflects, which in turn results in less heat energy being radiated back into space. Climate sensitivity depends on the balance between those feedbacks
Which is the great unknown, despite the science being 'settled'. In the good'ol days, climate 'scientists' rushed to print with claims of 8°C, then 5°C, then 3°C, then 2°C, and currently 1.5°C. Which is the current 'must not exceed' limit, and is still within the bounds of physics. So of course reality stepped in, and observations showed the earlier claims didn't match reality, thus the models were wrong.. And the models were wrong because the assumptions wrt those 'exacerbating feedbacks' were wrong. Run the models with lower sensitivity wrt CO2, and they're a closer fit with reality, especially when hindcast, ie 'predicting' the past to see if model results match historical observations. But we knew this would be the outcome because of the basic physics, and the IPCC even giving CO2 a GWP of 1 because CO2 is a weak GHG.
But that left the problem of deferred Thermageddon, and not enough carbon to meet the doomsayer's predictions. Downside is the carbon cult exploded into a trillion dollar industry, and the cultists want their money, whether that's the UN with their demands for $100bn a year, or the 60,000 cultists who fly annually to the UN's cult (ok, COP) conferences. And then because money, climate 'scientists' became lobbyists for the 'renewables' industry. We must undo the sins of the Industrial Revolution and deindustrialise. Countries like Germany and the UK are well along with that project. Damn the economy! Save the planet! Go back to building windmills, or we'll glue ourselves to the road and throw soup at artworks!
Which is the problem. The science has been hijacked by activists who just want to make money from the War on Warmth. Don't build nuclear, build windmills.. Because 'Teh Science!' says we must Act Now! and 'renewables' makes billions a year in subsidies from the UK alone. But if the science says that Global Warming will lead to weather 'extremes', and we're seeing those 'extremes' already.. Does it really make sense to waste (ok, invest) billions into an energy production infrastructure that's especially vulnerable to the weather?
Our ancestors knew the risks of relying on wind for energy, hence obsoleting windmills at the first opportunity, and same with sailing ships. Morons like Millibrain don't know their history, physics or engineering, so is happy to waste billions on weather dependent and obsolete technology that does little to reduce UK energy costs, economic competitiveness, drives inflation inexorably higher and helps kill pensioners thanks to ever increasing energy poverty.
"Well that would be because those who believe that we should not take any action until after something has happened and subsequently been proven to have happened"
It is nice idea to act before something happens. But if you have no idea why something happens, you'll most probably do the wrong act.
It's not enough to observe something happening, you need to know why and *then* have correct acts.
Unfortunately climatologists have thrown the towel in the corner in scientific sense and try to predict everything with *engineering tools* because they have no clue at all.
Reducing emissions isn't bad idea per se, but at least have the facts right: It's a *political/environmental* issue and connection to warming is at least shaky.
Possible, but nothing current climatologists can explain. The lates WTF is when IPCC tried to present CO2 as *strong* greenhouse gas.
When these people blantantly lie on basic (and easily measurable) facts, you know everything else is BS also.
actually, it does exactly mean that. The current warming, above the predictions, come in parallel to observations (don't have time to find the references) about lower cloud coverage as before. And lower cloud coverage means more albedo, meaning less photons reaching the ground and heating Earth, but ALSO meaning more water vapor in the atmosphere – since it condensed less into clouds – which is also a green-house gas and much more powerful – like 10 to 100 times more – than CO2. So less clouds → warmer.
And since there is no explanation linking CO2 to cloud formation, the current climate models are crap.
Now, the real question is : why are there less clouds ?
And lower cloud coverage means more albedo, meaning less photons reaching the ground and heating Earth, but ALSO meaning more water vapor in the atmosphere – since it condensed less into clouds – which is also a green-house gas and much more powerful – like 10 to 100 times more – than CO2. So less clouds → warmer.
Also an argument for Clean Air Acts leading to (some) 'Global Warming', both by reducing smog and leading to those pesky photons finding an easier route to ground, and also reducing particulates that might provide nulcleation sites for condensation (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) and SOx emissions that have a negative effect. Oh, and then the Hunga Tonga eruption that chucked a LOT of water into the upper atmosphere, which is now mostly clearing. So if theories that that eruption lead to temporary warming, temperatures might be expected to fall, or normalise.. Which evidence suggests is happening.
And since there is no explanation linking CO2 to cloud formation, the current climate models are crap.
Well, they're getting less crap, hence predicting less 'extreme' global warming. Mainly due to better understanding that CO2 is a weak GHG, and many of the 'forcings' and 'feedbacks' predicted by the doomsayers aren't real.
Now, the real question is : why are there less clouds ?
I'm a fan of Svensmark's theory as it seems to provide a better mechanism for cloud dynamics and their role in temperatures. Plus the theory has been partially validated by CERN and other research institutes. CO2 dogmatists of course are in denial about this because we can't tax cosmic rays or CCNs. A common theme is to deny variability or trends in GCRs or SEPs, even though those are easy to debunk by looking at the observational evidence, eg-
Further experiments by Svensmark and collaborators published in 2013 showed that aerosols with diameter larger than 50 nm are produced by ultraviolet light (from trace amounts of ozone, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor), large enough to serve as cloud condensation nuclei.
Although solar insolation may be pretty constant, the spectral composition varies, ie the amount of UV emitted which varies and can be tracked by counting sun spots. Herschel did this, and suggested a correlation with wheat prices. It's also interesting because variations in solar activity vary the amount of SEPs, and GCRs, plus potential increases as our magnetic field gets gradually weaker.. Which I think provides a far more plausible explanation for big climate change events like Ice Ages.. Which CO2 dogma can't explain.
>” Which is meaningless because "the predictions" aren't based on anything real anyway. Pull a number from the sleeve and call it "prediction".”
Just like the financial analyst share and growth expectatins; perhaps we should be humouring these shamen more….
"Unfortunately they are saying that in fact the models are giving us the best case scenarios.**"
The problem is the part where "they say". Whole thing is pure politics now and climatologist lie all the time, so there's no way to know. The more they lie, the more money and fame they get as a reward. Genuine lysenkoism.
Obviously none of their results are repeatable or based on open data: The basic blocks of actual science.
Well, in the UK for example, if we hurry (ie. Take drastic action in the coming 1~2 decades) we stand a chance of maintaining an advanced civil society of circa 30M people, do nothing and expect a pre industrial age population of sub 5M…
Suspect with the USA things are even more bleak…
" reporting on scientific work ""
But not actual science: Pseudoscience at best. Making it look like science doesn't make it science and numerical models are for engineers, no science there.
That's kind of a problem: People confuse research or engineering to science.
"How is reporting on scientific work "leveraging a powerful communication channel to propagate a personal viewpoint"? That seems to be an odd definition of a "personal viewpoint". Please explain."
Because the 'science' is disputed at best, and debunked at worst (c.f. Mann's hockey puck), and the whole article is frothing at the mouth.
Ergo: opinion not fact, and has no place on a fact-based site.
Agreed. There is a place for such opinion pieces, and it is good that they are published and thought about and commented on, but a tech publication isn't the place.
If Just Stop Oil's website is suddenly running opinion pieces on the relative merits of vi and Emacs, then I stand corrected.
Anybody whose professional livelihood depends on a particular outcome cannot be trusted to be impartial in determining that outcome.
See also: climate scientists working for thinktanks or research institutions funded by billionaire apocalyptic climate messiahs.
And see also; orange politicians who have promised to get their country going again and hang the consequences.
In short: I trust nobody.
"... good thing and honour to waste your life in traffic instead of asking for less commuting "
You almost got the idea, but you started with a false concept.
Commuting is bad, but cruising around to the beach in sunny Sunday on semi-empty roads is patentably fun thing to do.
Both are technically 'driving a car' but as an experience, worlds apart.
Donald (Gimme’a Bl-w Jo-) Trump and other like-minded conservatives remain quite willing to pollute and warm the planet most liberally. And it must be convenient for the very-profitable mega polluters.
To date there clearly has been pathetically insufficient political courage/will to properly act upon the scientific cause-and-effect of them. Human-caused global warming and its resultant increasing number and intensity of climate-change-induced extreme weather events rightfully continue to stir up alarm. Perhaps even for many of those people who still claim to distrust climate science.
Yet, increasingly problematic is the very large and growing populace who are too overworked, worried and even angry about food and housing unaffordability for themselves or their family — all while on insufficient income — to criticize the fossil fuel industry, etcetera, for environmental damage their policies cause/allow, particularly when not immediately observable.
There’s a continuance of polluting the natural environment with a business as usual attitude. Societally, we still discharge out of elevated exhaust pipes, smokestacks and, quite consequentially, from sky-high jet engines like it’s all absorbed into the natural environment without repercussion. Out of sight, out of mind.
"Human-caused global warming and its resultant increasing number and intensity of climate-change-induced extreme weather events rightfully continue to stir up alarm"
There's a minor problem with this logic: "The extreme weather events" do not exist. If you believe the news, they happen every day, but that's a fallacy: Extreme weather, like hurricanes, are rarer than 20 years ago. And recorded maximum was in 1950s, according the NOAA.
Build houses to flood plain and you get floods: Connection to climate is absolutely zero: Same plain has been flooding thousands of years. News of course don't tell you that because fear mongering is the idea: Fear makes money.
There's definitely no *global* warming, some places haven't warmed at all and no-one has been able to prove it's even related to CO2 either. Even less about man-made.
Warming, definitely. A lot less than what was predicted though and still slowing down. If we believe NASA and not IPCC, of course.
I personally don't really like the idea that China is building thousands of coal powered power plants per year, but it's out of my jurisdiction ... I just try to avoid stuff made in there ... and that's not easy.
Not just because of CO2, but SO2.
...and to some extent, "the elderly/infirm/young/other helpless minority" because this leads the main perpetrators of the issue at large - ie. mostly everbody - thinks it's going to hurt someone else and so maybe, just maybe, they'll be all right Jack, and just carry on as they are, forgetting that they might one day also be old, or infirm, or have kids, or - shock horror - poor one day, because there's not an awful lot of need for software engineers when there's no civilisation left to need an internet for because all the poor people who used to work in the fields are now dead and, in fact, so are the fields.
WTF? Why the hell are we helping furriners kill their own poor? Why are we doing that for free? Did you ever see them dig deep in their pockets to kill some of our poor for us? No they make us pay for the damn Fentanyl ourselves.
It's all very well having yet another predictive report but what we really need right now is practical strategies to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels (switching to low carbon energy generation systems would help there) and the implementation of methods such as cloud seeding to produce more reflective cumulus clouds, the deployment of olivine grains to effectively convert CO2 to carbonates, etc.
Well said!
I've just been reading Neal Stephenson's "Termination Shock" - a well-written piece of SF and an enjoyable read, but I'm left wondering about his anti-global warming device, which deploys sulphur dust as a high altitude sun-screen - an idea I've never previously seen discussed. So, does anybody know if its a possible approach or just BS?
...but I'm left wondering about his anti-global warming device, which deploys sulphur dust as a high altitude sun-screen - an idea I've never previously seen discussed. So, does anybody know if its a possible approach or just BS?
Yep. Cloud seeding is a thing and works to induce rainfall. Sometimes with unintended consequences, like too much rain and flooding. Rest is much like a lot of 'Global Warming' scams, like windmills or batteries. Sure, it could work, but at what cost? Which could be pitched as a cost/benefit thing. We go back to burning high sulphur coals and oils, and then we'd get the sun-screen effect, and cheaper electricity to run AI & climate models into the bargain.. But that kind of pollution has other negative effects. Or maybe spend billions building fleets of diesel engined aircraft to dump exhaust directly into the upper atmosphere, which would give the chemtrail crew something else to panic about.
Thanks for your link to "https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/30/solar_radiation_management/": thats a most interesting read.
The solution proposed in "Termination Shock" is essentially SAI, implemented by injecting finely divided elemental sulphur into the stratosphere by using a very large automatic gun. The finely divided elemental sulphur is claimed to be stable in the upper atmosphere, though no supporting evidence is given, probably because the book is an SF novel rather then a scientific paper.
The privileged few who get to orbit our planet usually express awe and even love for the beautiful Earth below while they’re in orbit. One wonders how they feel when seeing such raging, massive blazes as the firestorm that viciously consumed a large swath of Los Angeles, while knowing that the air is being choked with health-damaging particulates? Or the huge fires frequently ravaging the Amazonian rainforest?
As Brazil’s (previous) president, Jair Bolsonaro had recklessly allowed the rainforest to be razed by both meat farmers and wildfires. Incredibly, in the midst of yet another unprecedented wildfire during the summer of 2019, the evangelical-Christian president declared that his presidency — and, I presume, all of the formidable environmental damage he inflicts while in power — is somehow divine: “It is difficult to be president of Brazil because it is a president that has less authority. I am fulfilling a mission from God.”
Strangely enough though not surprising, early on Nov.6 Donald Trump stated: “Many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason. And that reason was to save our country and to restore America to greatness.”
As Canada’s (previous) prime minister, Stephen Harper, who also is an evangelical Christian, was unrelenting in his pro-fossil-fuel/anti-natural-environment war against science. [As PM, Harper also felt compelled to take a group of 208 people with him to the Holy City, Jerusalem, in 2014. The entourage included 21 rabbis along with some representatives from Crossroads Christian Communications, Trinity Bible Church, the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada and Canada’s Ambassador for Religious Freedom.]
There also is a belief held by much of conservative 'Christianity' that to defend the natural environment from the planet’s greatest polluters, notably the fossil fuel industry, is to go against God’s will and is therefore inherently evil. Many even credit the bone-dry-vegetation areas uncontrollably burning in California seemingly every year to some divine wrath upon that state’s collective liberal sinfulness.
… Perhaps there’s a serious hazard in such theologically inclined people getting into high office?
There also is a belief held by much of conservative 'Christianity' that to defend the natural environment from the planet’s greatest polluters, notably the fossil fuel industry, is to go against God’s will and is therefore inherently evil. Many even credit the bone-dry-vegetation areas uncontrollably burning in California seemingly every year to some divine wrath upon that state’s collective liberal sinfulness.
... because I do and I've never heard any one espouse either of those beliefs.
To your first point, every position I've ever heard was that the Earth belongs to God and humanity are stewards of it.
To your second, I'm sure there are some misguided souls who think that, but I seriously doubt they the majority. Every Christian I know believes that human activity is the root cause.
I think you have them confused with Leftists.
You need to check your history, one link goes to the leader of the Nazi party, a person well known for absolutely hating socialism, Communism, Marxism, or anything similar.
Just because the party had 'Socialist' in the name, doesn't mean it was actually socialist, their politics were based on Italian fascism from the 20s onwards. The only reason why 'Socialist' was added to the party name was to try and appeal to working class left wing Germans. Same reason they added 'National' to the name, to appeal to the right wing. They were trying to consolidate power, so they could take over.
There is a serious problem with people not speaking and understanding German and thinking they know how a word works. "Nationalsozialistisch" in that context puts the nation before the people. The rest is just "The name was chosen for propagandist reasons, not for their actual belief or actions".
Same with the US: Just because the call themselves "republican" or "democrat" does not actually mean what those words mean.
"...firestorm that viciously consumed a large swath of Los Angeles,"
Definitely not connected at all to reality where LA moved 70 millions from firefighters to the police less than year ago. /s
When you have no firefighters, you get firestorms in a dry climate, like LA. That's literally inevitable and has been happening a long time before a single human lived there.
Same thing in Australia couple of years ago: Government stopped funding volunteer firefighters and lost more than 2000 local fire brigades. Funny thing, less than year later record level of bushfires.
But nono. no connection whatsoever, it's the global warming.
So now I wonder: did an ancient Akkadian read on the morning edition clay tablet about drought threatening collapse of civilisation in Mesopotamia and scientists blaming the disaster on the abundance of slaves slaving away at their tasks? In short: never you worry, climate change has been a thing since the earth began. I'd be much more concerned about all the pollution and devastation of the natural environment, but those don't attract many research grants and angry teenage schoolgirls. None of these "alternative energy" solutions are recyclable or sustainable – they just exist to channel money into the pockets of their suppliers. The only reason why we have it easy these days is because the weather has been pleasantly stable for 12,000 years.
" None of these "alternative energy" solutions are recyclable or sustainable"
Good point. What do you do to used solar cell? Or broken windmill? It's basically plastic all the way, enforced with glass or carbon fiber.
Both also use huge amounts of energy to make them, but it's OK as it's a coal plant in China which generates the energy.
After all, if the danger of climate change is sufficiently grave and imminent for governments to be considering science-fiction solutions, isn’t it also grave and imminent enough for them to consider just plain science-based solutions?
Naomi klein
This changes everything...
Also,
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'"
Isaac Asimov
The planet is warming up - fact! There are over 8.2 Billion humans on the planet - fact! There were 1.6 Billion humans in 1900 - fact! Since 1900 the planets average temperature has risen pretty much in line with population growth. Unfortunately our "economies" are based on population so the constant push for "growth" means more and more people. In the long term that is unsustainable regardless of whether we manage to get the current temperature rises under control or not and regardless of the method of temperature control. The fundamental problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE but everyone puts their fingers in their ears or changes the subject whenever that is mentioned.
As for those who cite geological temperature changes, most of those changes happened gradually over tens of thousands or millions of years, not over the mere 275 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution and the accompanying population explosion.
..not over the mere 275 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution and the accompanying population explosion.
And you know this.. how, exactly? Perhaps you can show me a map with the locations of those weather stations from 275 years ago? Or is your position that humanity should be forced back to pre-industrial lifestyles? Greens seem to want this, but I'm pretty sure most people don't want the diseases, poverty, starvation and much shorter life expectancy that came with that lifestyle.
This is a fairly simple proposition to test. We could build camps that accurately represent that idylic, bucolic pre-Industrial lifestyle and sentence anti-oil and environmental terrorists to just live there for say, 5yrs. No electricity, no gas, no synthetics. Also no argument that this would be a cruel and unusual punishment because that's the lifestyle they want to force on all of us.
You seem to have ranted against something I didn't say, or rather you picked on one tiny part of what I wrote and went down the rabbit hole after that. I have never suggested that we go back to the Stone Age or any such bullshit. What I believe is our species only chance of long term survival is to start to manage our reproduction. A lack of growth does NOT mean going backwards in terms of standard of living. At the moment if we continue to fuck up where we live, we don't have anywhere else we can move to. Perhaps the human race deserves what is coming. As a species we certainly seem to like shitting in our own backyard.
"The planet is warming up - fact! "
Some places, yes. Mostly cities. Funny that. ... and of course the rest of the 'facts' arent any better, either. It's funny when people 'know' a lot of stuff.
"most of those changes happened gradually over tens of thousands or millions of years,"
No, that's what climatologist try to lie and it's proper BS. Without any proof whatsoever, of course.
When Vikings froze in Greenland, it happened in *single years*. Less than 10. Ask archeologists, they know.
And that was a huge change, changing Greenland from actually green to plot of ice what is now.
Rapid cooling is easy. A minor volcanic eruption can and regularly does just that. A major eruption could cause a 10 year freeze. Krakatoa caused a worldwide cooling for a few years.
Greenland was named that way in the hopes of attracting more settlers, not because it was actually green. It probably was green about 2.5 million years ago if the tectonic plates move the way we currently believe they do because back then it was a lot farther from the North Pole.
As for the warming of the planet, some places are cooling others are warming, but averaged across the whole planet it is warming.
I don't "know" anything. I research and I check and I doubt and I research again and sometimes I change my view when the facts contradict what I previously thought. That is how science works. It's not a belief system or a religion. It constantly evolves and changes as new information comes to light.
Rapid cooling is easy. A minor volcanic eruption can and regularly does just that. A major eruption could cause a 10 year freeze. Krakatoa caused a worldwide cooling for a few years.
Yep, the famous 'Year Without Summer'. They can also do the opposite, ie the recent Hunga Tonga eruption upchucked massive amounts of water into the upper atmosphere and caused transient warming-
https://www.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/
In the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, Millán and his colleagues estimate that the Tonga eruption sent around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – equal to 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer... Millán analyzed data from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) instrument on NASA’s Aura satellite, which measures atmospheric gases, including water vapor and ozone. After the Tonga volcano erupted, the MLS team started seeing water vapor readings that were off the charts. “We had to carefully inspect all the measurements in the plume to make sure they were trustworthy,” said Millán.
So some proper science. Actual observations and all that. And because H2O is a far more potent 'GHG' it may produce a transient warming effect, which has been measured.. And of course hijacked by the carbon cultists as more 'proof' of global warming, so ban fossil fuels, give the UN $100bn a year etc. The Bbc screams about record warming, but carefully glosses over that the records were actually created by jet engines and a volcano. But if Millán and colleagues are correct, the temporary blip from Hunga Tonga should be disappearing from the temperature observations around about now. And then the climate cultists will eventually point to Hunga Tonga as the reason why temperatures haven't continued to rise.
A neat event, partly because it happened to be captured on video (and microwave) and observations help clarify the contributions of H2O and CO2, showing that CO2 is only a weak GHG. But it also shows that volcanic events are short lived, ie around 3-5yrs, whereas the LIA lasted from the 14th to 18th century.
Greenland was named that way in the hopes of attracting more settlers, not because it was actually green.
Yep, and Vinland was named to tempt settlers with free booze. But the point is Greenland was green enough to farm produce that can't be farmed there now because it's still too cold. Plus the farms that were covered by advancing ice during the LIA, and are now being exposed as we warm following the end of the LIA.
But it's a fascinating, albeit controversial subject, mainly because of the heretical implications. So Erik and his band of property developers landed in Greenland during the MWP, which ran from maybe around 950-1250AD. Life was good, and there was trade with places like Portugal, as evidenced by trade goods uncovered as the ice has melted. But then the LIA happened, weather got worse, the colonists had fewer goods to trade and the Portugese stopped coming. Kind of a macro-version of how not to deal with climate change. The locals offered to help, but that was seemingly rejected. But per wiki-
Possible causes of the MWP include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes in ocean circulation. Modelling evidence has shown that natural variability is insufficient on its own to explain the MWP and that an external forcing had to be one of the causes
Those pesky models. Can't explain why the MWP was warmer, or as warm as today by CO2 dogma, can't explain the 'external forcing', which couldn't have been CO2 either.. And it's the same for the LIA. Something happened, we don't know what, but we can pretty much rule out CO2 entirely.. Which is also the present day challenge, so how much of our current climate is due to natural variability, undiscovered forcings, and of course CO2.. Which we know from ice cores increases following warming. One of James Hansen's acolytes published a paper claiming CO2 was the temperature 'control knob', but has walked that back recently because it's pretty obvious that CO2 is a weak GHG and can't be a causal agent in past climate changes.
And if CO2 is a weak GHG, and there have been many benefits having increased it from 280-440ppmv in terms of a greener planet and improved crop yields.. Why TF are we getting so stressed over CO2? Answer, of course is the money.. $100bn a year for the UN, £40bn+ a year for the 'renewables' scumbags.. It's not suprising there's so much pressure to keep the carbon scam going.
Just hoping the work has been published/mirrored on non-US government controlled website, as we can expect the Mar-a-lago resident and his cronies making efforts to get this taken down as part of their cleanup of government websites…
"As top climate scientist Michael Mann "
Yet another professional bulls**er and snake oil peddler. Well paid, of course. Bulls**ers have always very high salary.
These clowns have tried to create a formula defining the connection between co2 and global temperature since early 1990s, 1 attempt, zero success. Literally billions of euros/dollars spent, no results at all. Either they are incompetent or they try to prove inprovable, i.e. start from false assumptions. Your call on that.
Also: Calling numerical model, i.e. glorified extrapolation, "science" is a heresy by itself: It is *not* science. Numerical model literally produces the result you want, just by selecting inputs correctly. Any numerical model. Also, there's only two possible result for a numerical model when you extrapolate far enough: Infinity or oscillation.
Of course only those models, which result infinity, are shown: The politically possible result.
Warming is relatively easy to measure, but none of these people can prove a reason for that and imho they are paid to present pure guesswork as 'science' to justify taxing oil and coal. No more, no less: The idea IPCC had in the first place: Raking billions in cash to their own pockets. Lo and behold: *That* reality has happened.
I've read actual IPCC meeting documents (when they still were public, in late 1990s) and >90% of them was about not publishing a research at hand as it would 'contradict the agenda'. If you haven't, you have no idea and are just parroting about 'science', which isn't science: It's high school math, at best. It doesn't prove anything at all.
Another, related problem:
We do know that NASA, who provides majority of data points, i.e. defines 'global average' , 'corrects' their measurements. How much and which way? That we do no know: They won't say.
Do climatologists use 'corrected' data or 'uncorrected' data? Whatever provides 'better' results, perhaps? Even climatologist has to eat and grant money isn't automatic.
How far you would go to get couple of millions of 'research funding'?
Mr. Mann would do anything for that, I'm sure. Money and fame, that's the name of the game. Actual science? What's that?
But there's no point in trying to argue with the anthropogenic climate change zealots because they are the disciples of a new religion championed by people like Gates and the "World" organisations who persist in travelling around the world thumping their bibles.
The Maldives are yet to be inundated despite prophecies of doom from the 1990s.
"The Maldives are yet to be inundated despite prophecies of doom from the 1990s."
Here in North we have a sea level gauge at the port: It measures current sea level and winds change that a lot (relatively) but long term average hasn't moved an iota since 1980s.
NOAA says 2" and I can believe that as plausible, it's below the resolution of this gauge as typical changes (due the wind) are in 30" class.
Where is the 70 meters we were promised in early 00s? Just BS, like all the other predictions IPCC is or was making.
Not only that, that 2" is basically all heat expansion and actual sea level hasn't rised at all. Or at least that's what NOAA says.
> Where is the 70 meters we were promised in early 00s? Just BS
It is indeed complete BS that we were promised 70 metres in the early '00s. I honestly don't know whether people like you are hilariously misinformed or just sad little trolls.
E.g. here's the IPCC's Climate Change 2001, the major IPCC report that most closely matches your vague "early 00s" reference.
It states upfront, on Page 3, in its introduction: "globally averaged sea level is projected by models to rise 0.09 to 0.88 m by 2100."
I guess you just unilaterally decided to multiply by 80 and move the time horizon forward by 75%? Would love to hear the source for your imaginary number.
"As top climate scientist Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania [...]"
The same Michael E. Mann of the University of Pennsylvania who falsely claimed to have been awarded a Nobel Prize?
The same Michael E. Mann of the University of Pennsylvania who refuses to pay a judgment for costs levied against him in The Supreme Court of British Columbia?
The same Michael E. Mann of the University of Pennsylvania who, along with his co-conspirators at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, 'hid the decline'?
The same Michael E. Mann of the University of Pennsylvania who uses other peoples money to pursue lawfare against those with the temerity to notice his duplicity?
Thanks are due Myslewski - by treating Michael E. Mann of the University of Pennsylvania as a reliable interlocutor he has made it possible to save the time needed to read the article, knowing it's propaganda dressed up in scientism.