« "Moroccan" sword tonight. | Main | More Panic from Flynn Prosecutors? by Larry C Johnson »

03 October 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Babak Makkinejad

There are 3 orbital parameters that are involved, see here please:



How many Neanderthal factories did it take to end the Ice Age? What happened to them all?



Thousands of scientist did not conduct thier own studies to come to the same conclusion, nor did they try and validate the studies.

blue peacock

Well said, Jack. I have seen a chart of Cat 5 hurricanes/cyclones around the world over the past 100 years and it was also distributed randomly across that period.

"Carbon trading and offsets are another scheme for financial interests to make money."

Absolutely. That's why Wall St likes it. Then add in all the taxpayer subsidies for "green washing". Ethanol and the subsidies for Tesla. A very good answer to less hydrocarbon pollution is nuclear. But, the greenies don't like that.

I agree with you that our focus should be on man-made pollution and habitat destruction.

Barbara Ann


Wiki says "To date, no proof has been found of past or present life on Mars".

Are you by chance referring to this? If so the results appear inconclusive:

The team concedes, however, that this finding by itself isn't enough to prove that there's life on Mars


Barbara Ann


Suggest you start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Description

All gases with 3 or more atoms (H2O, CO2) absorb more of the longer wavelength heat radiation re-emitted by the earth's surface than the incoming shorter wavelength heat radiation from the Sun. If our atmosphere had no 'greenhouse effect' at all the surface equilibrium temperature would be about 0 degrees (Fahrenheit) a little cold for my liking.

Joe100, Babak and others will quite rightly point out that there are secondary negative feedback effects, such as more evaporated water vapor increasing albedo due to clouds etc, but as a stand alone factor more CO2 means more heat absorption.

Does this prove Global warming is real? No, because as others have said the climate models used to predict future temperatures are still woefully inadequate. However, we would be wise to be at least cautious over messing with atmospheric CO2 at current levels, given the estimated historic correlation between CO2 and temperature (see the lower chart and note that current CO2 is now over 400ppm).

David Solomon

Maybe you can consult Egill Skallagrimsson?



I'd agree that they did not do their own studies. But they did verify or study the existing models. That's what scientists usually do. First, we have models, and then others will chanllenge each model. It's very costly otherwise.


I would suggest more you start from this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature. Your link is elementary school level with added big words and while the references are good they are to my taste a little bit to much Meteorology 201 instead of 101

and use Kelvin for all temperatures. It shows that a seemingly small change, say 5%, is for humans gigantic


I have no doubt that if you don't believe in evolution you would sat the same thing about evolution.


Forgot to comment about your statement if Global warming is real. Another term for it is climate change. Having more clouds is a change in climate. And the ideas that you don't have global warming because of extra clouds etc. can only keep the temperature constant on a global level, not local.

Barbara Ann

I am sorry my comment was not to your taste, I necessarily had to make a guess as to where you are 'at' scientifically. I will be sure to use the correct Lordly units in any future correspondence. The reason I parenthesized "Global warming" was that this is the important result of the anthropogenic aspect of ceaseless "climate change". And if it is real, the IPCC's line in the sand is likely to be about as effective as King Cnut's.


Normally i don't really care what units people use (as long as they use standard units normal, non-Americans can understand). But with climate change it makes it obvious that a change from 300K to 301K is for the solar system a very small change but for us it is significant. It kills the how can such little CO2 change the climate so much.

Babak Makkinejad

No, in fact, I no longer accept the Theory of Evolution based on Darwinism or its remediated version - punctuated equilibrium- by Gould. The mathematics does not work out. Then there is the problem of speciation and the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record.

Babak Makkinejad

The emergence of mankind, requires multiple cocomitant beneficial mutations over a relatively short time. How likely were all those tens of mutations to occur, in brain size, in metabolism, in human female etc.? What were the mechanisms?
What we are told are scientistic fables, in my opinion. And no, I am not an Intelligent Design proponent.



Then, what are you?

Babak Makkinejad

Some are indeed purveyors of Scientistic fables, opposing the religious fables of some others. I am struck also by how much Agency some have endowed Evolution: "In Evolution everything is possible"



It does not seem that you are a Muslim.

Babak Makkinejad

A man in search of Scientific Truth, a dissident from Scientism.

Babak Makkinejad

Why do you say that?

different clue

There must be at least a billion words written about global warming. With a million or more fresh words being written every day. I have only been able to read a few hundred thousand of those words, so why do I think I know what I think I know?

Some sciences can perform controlled experiments in lab conditions. Those sciences are able to show something with the certainty we would all wish for from the earth-sciences. But we don't have a second identical "control earth" where we can "not do" the things we are and have been doing here. The closest we can come to "controlled experiments" on something like climate is to regard the earth before industrialization as the "control" and the earth during and after industrialization as the "experimental".

I first read about the theoretical possibility of global warming from fossil-fuel-driven rising CO2 amounts in the air sometime in the late seventies I think . . . in an article in CoEvolution Quarterly Magazine. Just recently I saw this copy of an obscure little press report from a paper maybe in New Zealand given some of the place names . . .
That little press piece extrapolated from a combination of knowing that CO2 molecules absorbed certain infra-red wavelengths which would radiate into space otherwise and that burning more coal would place more of this certain-IR-wavelengths-absorbing gas into the atmosphere.

Back to more recently, as aerial CO2/NOx/methane levels have risen in the atmosphere, more heat has been retained to work its way through the earth surface systems; including the climate system. As greenhouse-gas and surface-heat levels kept rising, climatologists began making some crude large-scale predictions. Such as if this continues, the Arctic and SubArctic should warm up much faster than the non-Arctic. Those predictions based on that theory have come true, as predicted before the event by the sky-heatergas-buildup theory. The more predictions a theory allows its proponents to correctly make, the more factually founded and reality-based that theory would seem to be.

The "Forced Changes" theorists have made several correct climate-outcome predictions so far. The "Purely Natural Cycle" theorists have not made one single correct climate-outcome prediction so far as I know. So I am satisfied with the predictive and interpretive usefulness of the "Forced Changes" theory, including 'changes forced by heat-trapper-gas skydumping" . Satisfied enough that I expect to live my next few decades in a near-term future of rising heat-driven climate d'chaos decay. Do I take it seriously enough yet to get ready by losing a hundred pounds? That I don't yet know.

A problem with dispassionate discussion of these things is that the whole area of global warming thinkabouts has become wrapped around the axle of special political and commercial agendas and culture war side-taking and identity-upholding.
In social terms, "global warming" has become the headless sheep in a several-sided game of Buz Kashi.

Keith Harbaugh

Some brief serious comments before pointing out something more, um, attractive :-)

Regarding the argument that the apparent warming effect is not really global,
or is just due to urban growth around weather stations, urban heat islands, etc.,
this ignores more global phenomena,
such as the melting of polar ice, Antarctic ice sheets, Greenland ice cap, and the glaciers on land;
also the opening of the Northwest Passage through the Arctic Ocean.
Are the news reports about these a fiction?
I don't trust the media to give a balanced view of many subjects,
but on this I do trust them.
Likewise, there is no doubt that the scientific community (and the medical community)
have in some cases abandoned scientific objectivity and succumbed to political pressure.
E.g., I recently had a checkup at the local hospital, and when checking my records found that they identified me as "Assigned to male at birth".
What bullshit!
That was no assignment (such as one gets in school, in the Army, or on the job),
that was recognition of a biological reality.

But anyhow, enough seriousness.

I hadn't paid much attention to the publicity stunt of that Swedish teenager, Greta Thunberg.
However, reviewing an opera I enjoy and looking up one of its lead sopranos,
I discovered that that soprano is none other than Greta's mother!
What a surprise, at least to me.
Some of you may enjoy watching, as well as listening to, Greta's mom Malena Ernman in, um, action.
All in the service of art, of course.
Click here.
Who said classical opera has to be dull :-)
In case you are wondering, Malena was born in 1970; that video was made in 2011. Thus 41.


Keith Harbaugh

As I have told you off the blog, I think you are wrong about humans causing catastrophic climate change. But assuming you really believe that the end is upon us, how do you plan to spend your remaining days?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad