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

03 October 2019

Comments

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

Patrick Armstrong

REcord high at Anchorage Alaska
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/was-the-anchorage-all-time-temperature-record-aided-by-airport-growth/

Eric Newhill

Global warming is a means of manipulating city slicker types to join the globohomo socialist movement. Pity how the public schools and universities are used to brainwash our youth. I don't know anyone out here in the country that buys into the plot.

IMO, it's like a social club. All the "cool kids" believe in this uniting fear of warming. So I will too. Now I'm cool.

Also a pity that the whole thing is a massive hoax because I'd like to have warmer weather where I live, I'd like to see NYC sink beneath the waves and all of those fleeing city slickers would pay a pretty penny for my update land.

Joe100

This is the "space" I have worked in for 30+ years. A few observations from my "path" ( I could add many more):

1. The IPCC assessment process is quite political

2. Federal climate science funding flows mostly to modeling that flows back to IPCC assessments, little funding is available to better understand critical modeling parameters like how does co2 move in and out of oceans. At a meeting on geo-engineering maybe eight years ago I had dinner with a climate scientist who had been fairly high up in the Clinton administration. He told me that he agreed that we are starved for the science we need to effectively understand climate change, but Al Gore decide after the Kyoto climate meeting that "we had enough science and needed to move on to policy, so we don't need to continue to spend federal dollars on climate science...

3. Some eminent climate scientists have long noted that we lack the global environmental data networks to even begin to understand our climate system and have outlines what such systems would look like.

4. Clearly clouds and cloud processes have large climate impacts. About a decade ago another climate scientist told me that there was essentially no interaction between the climate modeling and cloud physics communities..

I would also note here that it is not helpful to a climate scientists' career and research funding to be raising questions about current climate science, it is much easier to "go with the status quo flow"..

5. We actually know very little about how global forests interact with our climate system, as most research has focused on carbon stocking - as this was thought decades ago to be the key interaction. In reality there are many other interactions like changes in albedo, reflective aerosol emissions, etc., most of which have been largely unexplored as there are no serious research funding programs that could support this work. This is a big gap in our knowledge and suggests that much existing public policy addressing forest management climate may not be having the assumed beneficial impacts.


6. Much western (US, CA & Europe) climate action advocacy and government policy has roots back in the late 1960's with the"soft path" renewables and energy efficiency vision vs. the (at the time) "hard path" based heavily on nuclear power. This vision created a significant global advocacy community that much later "grabbed" climate change as the key rationale for developing renewable energy and the existing "anti-nuclear" community initially pushed energy efficiency hard as an alternative to new power plants. In the US, several major San Francisco philanthropic foundations have committed billions of dollars to funding federal, regional and state environmental advocates to push energy effiiciency and renewables investment. Once again, climate change became the eventual rationale for a pre-existing advocacy/philanthropic agenda.

7. The environmental advocacy community typically has a single approach: the cry out that "the sky is falling (pick your example, in this case climate change) and everyone needs to eat their spinach and do what we want them to do".. Often with little basis for or vast overstatement of claims of harm.

8. Stuart Brand presented a brilliant assessment of why we find ourselves incapable of rational treatment of climate change in chapter seven of his book "While Earth Disciple". He observes that climate advocates are typically romantics, but we need engineers to sanely and effectively address climate change.

9. The recent uptake and amplification of the romantics' green climate agenda is unfortunate as much of the current western climate action agenda is probably constraining global energy system decarbonization.

This is not to say that some degree of climate change is probably real, but rather than there is much more that we don't know about our climate system to usefully understand what is going on, that western climate policy evolved before climate change surfaced as an issue and is continuing on "auto-pilot" without regard to what sensible and likely effective action would be to minimize potential climate change challenges.

My short message is that one pretty much can't believe that either side of this debate is on solid ground..

Sorry for the rant!

Sam

Babak,

Dr. Muller has recanted that assertion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

He now believes the rate of warming is almost entirely the result of humans.

It should be noted he is still very skeptical of the alarmist claims and their speculations of the impending disaster (as am I).

But to quote him:

"our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase."

BABAK MAKKINEJAD

I am aware of his recantation but he does not provide any evidence. Nor is he recanting the content of his book.

BABAK MAKKINEJAD

I do not trust anything coming out of IPCC.

The interaction of forests with the climate is one issue, the changes in the albedo of Earth by clouds in a moister warmer Earth is another area where science still must progress.

I do think that Earth is warming - NASA satellite images indicate more vegetation in desert areas of the world - and I have read that vineyards in British Colombia are experiencing longer and longer seasons.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how much the average surface temperature of Earth will rise if all the know oil reserves are burnt up (I will exclude gas fields for now).

Everyone knows that there is only so much CO2 or any other substance one can dissolve in a liquid before it saturates and starts to precipitate - in the form of acid rain.

Unhinged Citizen

Global warming or not, there are too many damn people in the nations of the world that cannot support themselves except under conditions of crushing poverty, and this causes an explosive demographic time bomb that will result in mass migrations and political upheaval on a scale not seen yet, with a slight trigger, be it a solar flare, rising oceans etc.

The developed world needs to impose population controls on those who breed prodigiously. Of course such thoughts are forbidden in the flatulent Western intellectual collective thought.

BABAK MAKKINEJAD

Well, we already have a Clash of Civilizations; what is a Crash Civilization on top of that?

I agree, the Climate has been around for 3 billion years and does not require or need cuddling.

Mark Logan

Babak,

Well, Argument from Personal Incredulity is another logical fallacy.

The case the CO2 is a greenhouse gas seems credible, therefore the notion we are changing the atmosphere is plausible.

Does the existence of cycles preclude the possibility of CO2 also causing warming? No. Do we demand absolute proof? Then the question must be asked.

What proof, if any, would serve?

We aren't going to get double-blind control experiment to prove or disprove this, so it must be to some degree an article of faith.

Barbara Ann

Joe100

A very helpful rant, thanks

Once again, climate change became the eventual rationale for a pre-existing advocacy/philanthropic agenda
The GND is a perfect example of this, with one of its architects even admitting as much. On your same point, it is the anti nuclear lobby that is responsible for the insanely Quixotic policy of despoiling our beautiful landscapes with wind turbines - a pox on their houses.

To your point #8, romantics should stick to writing poetry and similar pursuits and leave tiresome real world worries to scientists and engineers.

Effinghell

Spot on

Barbara Ann

If evidence of past life on Mars is found it will surely mark the greatest discovery in all of human history. The implication being that the Cosmos is almost certainly teeming with life. That would be quite something.

I should declare my own view (seemingly a minority among present company) that anthropogenic climate change (global warming) is likely a reality. Should it be used as an excuse to force a tyrannical regime of one kind or another upon us? Absolutely not. We are tribal carnivores, not colony living drone animals like bees or ants. We must live or die as free agents. Do I worry and despair? No. My faith in human ingenuity is strong and when suitably motivated there is little we cannot achieve, especially thru the judicious use of free enterprise. And if it is to be our doom? Well in that case what is the sense in worrying - all the more reason to enjoy the short time we all have.

God forbid this illustrious forum be given over to discussion of such a dry subject, there is so much more of interest going on in the world.

Harlan Easley

The doomsayers can't sell for shit. I've been in sales all my life. None of them would be successful as a used car salesman. Which I was successful more new than used though.

Their arrogance and condescending attitude and refusal to debate for the last 20 years lost a huge portion of the electorate. Including me. There may be a slight warming effect due to humans. I follow the UAH satellite reading since it is the only one I trust. Until they die. And it shows a slight uptick since measurements begin in 1979. But that is such a short time span. And it doesn't explain the medieval warming period or why the 1930s were a hot hellhole for the US.

But I am 100% certain that the forces behind this are not on the level. If they were they would hold China to account and not be in it only for the money via NGO payoffs to corrupt government officials around the world and carbon taxes. They can go to hell.

charly

We are in a phase that the precession would lead to a cooling

Babak Makkinejad

I am not denying the probable contribution of methane, co2, and water vapor to green house effect. I am asking for a percentage contribution above what could be attributed to astronomical causes. I have read Dr. Mueller's book and am familiar with Milankovitch Cycles: they ring true to me, a scientific judgement of mine.

TonyL

Fred,

Their finding was "extremely likely due to human activities." It is not the same as saying they have proof. Like with weather models, ie. statistical, we trust the forecast of a typhoon, hurricane, tropical storm ... forming. "extremely likely" is quite a strong consensus that should be taken very seriously.

For thoudsands of scientists to form the same conclusion, I think you'll need alien mindcontrol or some craziest conspiracy theories :)

Babak Makkinejad

Vikings did find life on Mars.

Babak Makkinejad

You sound like a person that has not read anything since the Populationn Bomb in his youth.

charly

The problem with global warming is that you only see in the media the explanation for elementary school kids or for third year meteorology students. The first is to much trust the experts and the last assumes you already understand it so well that you can calculate a simple model. I think a 101 Meteorology:How CO2 increases Temperature would convince most of you that Global warming is real but i can't find one.

Ingolf Eide

"It has not bee SHOWN. Peer reviewed academic studies generally prove one thing and that is that academics are conformists who seek approval from other academics."

PL,

I'm sure you're right that academics (including scientists) are prone to conformity. To conclude that a broad scientific consensus is therefore worthless, however, seems to me a step too far.

Anyway, for what they're worth, here are two links of the sort that eventually persuaded me to shift away from scepticism. The first looks at the sceptics' case and also provides links to quite a few more detailed aspects:

https://skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html


The second visually presents the contributions of various natural and man-made factors:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

jd hawkins

Damn... I wanted to say "spot on", but Effinghell beat me to it.

jd hawkins

"...if we can expel these maniacs from polite society".

Your comment (portion) regarding "polite society" is certainly polar opposite of my definition of same. I do understand your comment was only to 'draw attention', so it worked. I'd also say you are very lucky we're not in the era of Andy... as in Jackson... or you would probably be 'facing a white [or black] glove to the face!

jd hawkins

Two thumbs up for your comment.

jd hawkins

Damn good common sense statement!

Babak Makkinejad

You cannot find such a document since a credible scientific argument for it does not exist.

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
28            
Blog powered by Typepad