Complete quote: “Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and … a lot of it’s a hoax. It’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.” — Donald J. Trump, 30 December 2015.
From the NYT:
Source: Fountain, “How Hot Was It in July? Hotter than Ever,” New York Times, August 22, 2016.
If it’s not obvious, the top line is for 2016, and it indicates that for the first seven months of the year, this has been the hottest year on record.
Now, one might reasonably ask whether the higher — more red — lines are typically the more recent lines. Here we can go to NOAA to retrieve a time series graph:
I have not formally checked whether the 2016 value is statistically significantly higher than the 2015 value, but eyeballing, I think the gap is bigger than the 0.15 degree F or so margin that is the amount of uncertainty associated with the data set.
Note, Mr. Trump has a slightly different view on climate change in this case.
You’re catching El Nino on the bottom graph, right.
Satellite temps are here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2016_v6.jpg
it still exceeds all previous el nino years, right?
Yes, it does. It’s 0.34 deg C now and falling. If it stays above 0.3 deg C, then we can call a new round of warming. If not, then not much has changed since 1998.
steven, in particular i mention the continued high with respect to the noaa graph in the article itself. your original comment implies the high is due to the latest el nino-that was probably intentional. but if you look at the data, el nino peaks have generally trended higher over time. the most recent el nino only amplifies this trend.
Baffled, “…if you look at the data, el nino peaks have generally trended higher over time. the most recent el nino only amplifies this trend.” Absolutely correct. “…el nino only amplifies this (current short term warming) trend.”
Since you mentioned the NOAA graph, can you explain the ~30 year trend patterns contained within it? This alarmist paper does: http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/mittlere-atmosphaere-im-takt-mit-dem-ozean/
It concludes with: “”Only if we can clearly distinguish natural variability from anthropogenic influences, we can make reliable forecasts for the future development of our climate,” Prof. Matthes summarizes.”
corev, el nino only amplifies compared to the non el nino years, and many deniers use that as an excuse to throw out the trend. but el nino peaks have tended to increase over time, not decrease. so either the el nino is getting stronger with time, or the baseline upon which it is applied is increasing. neither situation supports the deniers position whatsoever.
Baffled, just what is the “denier” position? My original position was: “Since you mentioned the NOAA graph, can you explain the ~30 year trend patterns contained within it? ” In particular tell us what was happening in the first 60 years of data.
When I look at the data I see a clear pattern in the early data and see two super el Ninos since 1998. There was another in the early 80s. ACO2 has never been shown to be the driver for ENSO.
I know it inconvenient to find patterns in the data, but that is of what climate consists. Failure to recognize even this simplest concept while insisting temp increases are only/primarily due to ACO2 is just wrong.
Yes, there are anthro causes for SOME of the temp increases, but even these are fragmented.
Finally, waht amazes me the most is that you and Menzie think comparing a single month’s record data to annual AVERAGES show more than it actually does.
You should be more than a little leery of satellite temperatures. For one thing, we live on the surface, not miles up in the atmosphere. Second, the UAH satellite data is based on an average atmospheric height, but the height (or depth) of the troposphere varies over time…by quite a bit. Finally, satellites don’t actually measure temperature; instead, temperatures are inferred from radiance, which is what is actually measured. And the inference is tricky and fraught with practical problems. Those problems are orders of magnitude more serious than the problems associated with direct land and sea based temperature readings. There are plenty of problems with those radiance measurements…especially over a long time period.
As to El Nino events, it’s not exactly implausible that the surface heat from Asia makes El Nino events more likely. In other words, El Nino events are not entirely exogenous to global warming.
I have thought that you were somebody to be taken seriously, but you have completely discredited yourself here with exceptionally foolish remarks. The question is whether you are just ignorant or whether you are consciously engaged in distortions for propaganda reasons, or to be blunter, are you a liar or a fool?
So, you huff about satellite data. Well, most observers have preferred satellite data because it is supposedly not corrupted by some effects that ground data has such as the urban heat effect. The latter involves stations that were once in rural areas but are now have been built up around and thus tend to show warmer temperatures than in the past. Of course climatologists have figured out how to adjust for this, but it remains that those adjustments can be questioned. As it is, previously satellite data appeared to be showing no warming while ground data did, and the skeptics hooted about the satellite data. Since then it has been reiintepreted and found to be more consistent with the ground data. But your criticisisms of satellite data just make you look foolish or, well, I shall not repeat what I have already said.
I will grant that you are being reasonable when you note that the reportedly greater heat of the more recent El Nino may in fact reflect broader global warming.
But then we have the other point where you fall flat on your face, again posing that you are either a fool or a propagandist. This is your focusing on 1998 as a benchmark year for comparing anything since. This is the favorite year to use of the propagandists. Did you get it from watching Fox News? It was an extreme outlier year on the high side, well above the annual averages of that period. Using it a base to compare with later temperatures is completely unacceptable, and, again puts you in the position I have already posed. Do not continue to do that if you wish anybody other than climate skeptics or drooling right wing slugs to take you seriously.
Goodness, Barkley, that’s a bit harsh.
Baffs, the peaks have tended higher as you point out, notably from the 1950s to 1998.
It looks like the 2015 peak remains below the 1998 peak, with nothing approaching that level in between. That gap is the longest between strong or very strong El Ninos since 1950.
The Oceanic Nino Index increases from around 2.1 in 1982 to 2.3 in 2015. I don’t know whether that is a big change or not.
You tell me. http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
I wouldn’t say Barkley Rosser’s comment is harsh. More like pathetic. Left wing idealogues such as Barkley Rosser call you ignorant, a liar, or a fool because they don’t know how to refute you and that makes them angry. They are not used to having their comfortable, unexamined views subjected to any scrutiny and they lash out like wounded animals.
Yes, I am being harsh. OK, there has been no El Nino since 1998 stronger until 2015. But the real issue is what is the trend of global temperature. Looking at 1998 as a base to compare with is not reasoanble as it is a way outlier on the high side. Indeed that was part of a strong El Nino. You questioned satellite data, but then you are using it. I am not sure what your position is. One minute it is that we cannot assume that there is warming because somehow satellite data is unreliable, but then maybe El Ninos are stronger due to global warming.
It may be that I have misinterpreted what you said and that your reference to 1998 was simply in connection with El Ninos rather than the broader issue of the global average temperature trend, which is Menzie’s main point. Which is it? As it is, those who have questioned that there is global warming have repeatedly pointed to 1998 as somehow the year that must be compared with as if it were the previous norm. It certainly looked like that, and those doubting global warming have also dragged out El Nino as the supposed explanation of the apparent trend.
The real bottom line is that there does appear to be a warming trend, whether you focus on El Ninos or you do not focus on El Ninos.
I am personally more concerned about Russia and China. You do realize there’s a plausible case to argue that WW III starts next week.
I assume we are all aware that Russia has 100,000 troops and 400 tanks massed on the Ukrainian border.
And we are aware that China has sent ‘little green boats’ to assert a claim at the islands disputed by China and Japan, and that China has threatened Japan militarily if Japanese naval ships transit the South China Sea from, say, Tokyo to Singapore at a distance of 600 miles from mainland China.
Right now, we are on track for a war. If we are lucky, it will be just with the Russians or just with the Chinese. I can assure you, however, that will not be the case.
Rick – Let’s hear what Barkley has to say.
I prefer the satellite data for four reasons.
1. It’s more universal than land and sea based measurements
2. It’s more homogenous than land and sea measurements
3. It’s less prone to massaging, and if it is massaged, I know it’s by someone with sympathies in the skeptic camp
4. UAH has to line up pretty closely to RSS, as they both measure the same thing, so there’s some control
As I recall, Kevin (was it Kevin?) made some trenchant observations about satellite temps, and I accept that, but if I have to chose just one metric to observe, it will be UAH.
The peak of the 15/16 El Nino is 0.1 deg C above the 1998 El Nino. However, the ’98 El Nino looks more prolonged, and at this ENSO site (http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm), 1998 looks higher, or at least wider. I am not an expert in these matters.
I think the ‘official’ skeptic position is that temperatures are increasing by 0.1 deg C per decade, at least half of it from a natural rebound from the Little Ice Age, and perhaps another half from human activities. During the 1980s, the anomaly was around -0.1 C,
and recently was around +0.2 C. So I would expect it to move up now to +0.3 deg C. It’s above that level now, but falling.
For the moment I don’t see any sign of accelerating temperatures and I don’t in fact see much change since 1998, depending on where current temps settle. So I am not going to be too worked up about the matter. We have put up with gains of 0.1 C for 130 years and I really don’t see any reason to go back to the temperatures of 1880.
Similarly, if it’s 1 deg C hotter a century from now, I’m not going to get worked up about it.
If you think your post about world war was in anyway relevant here, well….
I think you are being more reasonable now, but indeed the trend looks more like a degree over the next century, although there is clearly a lot of noise in the data.
Something you have left out is that the main outside natural force that may be affecting things has been changes in sunspot activity, which would supposedly tend to provide a cooling effect. It may have done so during the apparent deceleration of the average temperature increase during 2005-10, which skeptics made a big whoop about. But the rate of increase has since re-accelerated, although that may be partly due to El Nino. In any case, this supposed cooling effect seems to be being dominated by other things, with the obvious suspect being human activity.
Steve, you said this: “I think the ‘official’ skeptic position is that temperatures are increasing by 0.1 deg C per decade, at least half of it from a natural rebound from the Little Ice Age, and perhaps another half from human activities. During the 1980s, the anomaly was around -0.1 C, and recently was around +0.2 C. So I would expect it to move up now to +0.3 deg C.” Most rational climate scientists will agree with the splitting of natural versus anthro causes while quibbling about amounts for each. What they will not accept is that anthro causes is also split even again into several components, 1) land use 2) Aerosols, and 3) Green House Gases (GHGs). Even GHGs and aerosols can be split by antho and natural causes, but few “believers” want to discuss this either.
Some day, maybe sooner than later, we will be able to assign reasonable values for the referenced climate change components, but I despair that a reasonable discussion may be held. Even today most “believer” types can not even admit ALL or nearly ALL the heat comes from the Sun. The other factors affect the ways and rates this heat dissipates to reach equilibrium.
There are so many points to discuss about climate change, but all we seem to get from the “believer” set is GHGs/CO2 when they actually mean ACO2/AGHG, which remains a minor cause of the temp change.
You are a gentleman Steven.
I think this AGW discussion is about very small quantities into the distant future.
Personally, I would be surprised if we make it through the next twelve months without a war in the South China Sea. To me, that’s more relevant by three orders of magnitude, at least.
I suspect that there’s some confusion here over who said what and when. I’m afraid that you convoluted my comments and Steven Kopits’ comments. So let me try and unravel things as best I can. Steven Kopits is a global warming skeptic (note: he’s in the oil business). He linked to a UAH chart showing a sharp drop in temperature for June 2016. Overall the satellite chart shows a very gentle rise in global temps since 1979 and no obvious trend since 1998. Basically the satellite data tells a story of a level shift in the late 1990s and not much additional warming since then. I think that says a lot more about the problems with satellite data than anything else. Satellite data has its place; e.g.., scientists seem to have worked out the problems with satellite measurements of arctic ice. But satellite data is not well suited to measuring temperatures because what it actually measures is radiance, which is then crunched through some guesses to arrive at an inferred temperature. Satellite data makes lots of yu-u-uge assumptions, including the stationarity of the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. There are also problems with orbit decay along with a long list of other problems. Direct temperature measurements have their issues too, but I believe those pale in comparison to the inherent problems with satellite data. None of this intended to impugn the good folks at UAH. Many of them are occasional dinner friends when I’m TDY to Redstone Arsenal/Marshall Space Flight Center, or guest lecturing at UAH. Discussions about the advantages of launches from the equator rather than Florida are fascinating. All that’s great. But there’s no getting around the problems with satellite data. And just to be clear, I am not a climate skeptic. I am quite convinced about manmade global warming. I’m a big fan of Marty Weitzman’s work on how to handle radical (Knightian) uncertainty when we cannot measure variability. And while it’s probably fair to say I’m a “slug”, I am definitely not right-wing. In fact, I suspect several folks here are convinced I’m a closet member of the Comintern.
Hope this clears things up.
I don’t think my view is informed by the oil business. I’ve worked in lots of different industries, but my opinion would be the same.
I think it’s really more ideological. I am a classical Smithian liberal by inclination, which places emphasis on individual liberties and the importance of prosperity. It does not, however, preclude the notion of public goods.
A classical liberal tends to give a free market the benefit of the doubt, with the burden on the data to demonstrate otherwise. I just don’t think the numbers are compelling enough to justify some sort of radical social re-engineering at this point.
1950s: 5 (1 strong)
1960s: 4 (1 str)
1970s: 4 (1 str)
1980s: 3 (1 very str)
1990s: 3 (1 very str)
2010s: 1 (1 very strong)
Don’t see much of a trend.
For those looking at Steven’s data reference, the ENSO did not magically start in the 50s. It is far more likely to be a semi/permanent characteristic apparent throughout climate cycle histories.
Climate cycle histories? Most climate alarmists completely ignore their existence. How can the glaciations be ignored, and the existence of their over riding presence be unvalued? But, in climate discussion it is the norm, as well as ignorance of their internal climate cycles leading tot eh very short ENSO cycles.
CoRev You’re arguing with a fake strawman of your imagination. Those of us who believe most of the recent global warming is due to manmade factors are quite aware of the fact that over millions of years there have been many climate cycles. Everyone knows that. But the fact that in the past there were natural explanations does not preclude the fact that global warming can also be manmade. And when looking at past history climatologists can usually identify a natural reason why temperatures increased. Temperature increases and glaciers didn’t just happen randomly. So if you believe today’s warming is due to natural causes rather than manmade causes, then let’s hear your natural explanation. And appeals to “cycles” is not a scientific explanation.
That CO2 can create a “greenhouse” effect is something that was proven in the laboratory a hundred years ago. Given enough CO2 and the atmosphere will eventually warm. That’s just a simple fact that can be proven today in almost any high school lab. The math function relating CO2 to temperature increases is well known. What is not well understood is the earth’s response function. Reasonable people can disagree about how much time we have before we reach a climate tipping point; but reasonable people cannot dispute the fact that manmade greenhouse gases are contributing most (if not all) of the recent increase in global temperatures.
2slugs, you claim that I am making a strawman argument , and then go off on your own trail of straw: ” But the fact that in the past there were natural explanations does not preclude the fact that global warming can also be manmade.,/b>” Where did I say/imply this?
I did in fact list the 3 major causes of man made temperature impacts for which most climate scientists recognize. I did, however, then relate their numerical relationships to each other and the natural impacts with emphasis on the ACO2/AGHG hypothesis. Y’ano the basis of your: “…reasonable people cannot dispute the fact that manmade greenhouse gases are contributing most (if not all) of the recent increase in global temperatures.”
As I so often ask of the “believer” set please do the math. Your response is an implicit request to suspend belief in “natural” impacts and assigns unproven strength to anthro causes over those ongoing natural causes of temperature change most (if not all) without any empirical and mathematical evidence.
Finally, my points have been that focusing on the short to ultra-short terms, ~136 years to 1 month records, obviously ignores the cycles outside the 136 year window, while focusing on the ultra-short 1 month record ignores the cycles within the 136 year window.
Your comment is a confirmation of this bias. Just how much of the record temperature cited in this article is caused by ENSO?
There is some truth to what “The Donald” says. The “Climate Modeling” business has become a very nice little cottage industry. We haven’t really found much new from this investment in a long time. What we learned from the models 25 yrs ago still holds true — humans are adding to the rise in global temperatures.
The Natural Sciences have also benefited from attention to Global Warming.
We still don’t have much detail about what to do about the situation other than “reduce our use of carbon.”
Perhaps it’s time to shift some of the resources over to the Behavioral and Social Sciences to come up with some new perspectives.
There are plenty of cost-effective ideas of what to do. Unfortunately, we’ve delayed and intentionally mislead long enough to ensure a pretty serious amount of additional warming over the next 50 – 100 years.
That will force more and more radical approaches with greater costs and uncertainties (geoengineering). Meanwhile, we could have aggressively expanded nuclear energy, built new high voltage transmission lines from the wind/solar corridors, and implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax. But the something something something hoax it-was-cold-in-January crowd’s votes matter just as much as ours.
Disclosure: I don’t doubt Trump actually denies global warming nor do I doubt he may have explicitly mentioned such in other instances
Maybe your selective Trump ‘[c]omplete quote’ where he repeatedly references “a lot of” is referencing his prior comments (which, if included, might provide a true ‘[c]omplete quote’) of climate change not being as big of a problem as ISIS, North Korea, and other areas Trump feels to be of greater importance than global warming.
Also, reading Trump transcripts is great – you get a better sense of how much he babbles incoherently. However, it’s sad that people like Menzie focus so much time on him. Unless of course Menzie thinks posts like these will sway an Econbrowser reader (readers I seem to recall Menzie often aggregating praise upon for their intellect) to not vote for Trump.
rtd: As you can read from the comments, there are some Trump supporters that are readers here.
I must confess, I do not understand at all your comment “…often aggregating praise upon for their intellect”.
I seem to recall you commenting in the past that readers of this blog are capable thinkers. I can’t seem find a direct link, however.
I think, Trump needs to stop reading the National Enquirer.
Menzie and the usual suspects focusing on the ultra-short term picture, how does this current el Nino driven cycle differ from the full Holocene-long record? This period actually looks like this: https://squashpractice.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/gisp2vostok.jpg
The common arguments against the Polar proxies is that they do not represent the ?whole? earth’s surface. No, they do not, but they do represent the places where global temperature effects are amplified the most. If you disbelieve that statement, then do not in the future reference the loss of glacier ice/sea level change.
How can anyone purporting to understand statistics, claim temperature records for a specific month over that AVERAGES for various length cycles? Do they NOT understand what averaging does to internal-cycle data?
While we are discussing the validity of data sources, satellite versus surface and the value of NOAA’s data, this is the OFFICIAL NOAA land only record for that same month: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201607.gif Which points to if the land only records are this spotty, then the ocean records are far, far, far worse. But you still believe the ultra-short, and incomplete surface records accuracy over all others.
The problem is the definition of “is”.
Most climatologists agree that 1850 marked the end of the “little ice age” as temperatures began to rise. Since that point, temperatures have risen and fallen in a cyclical fashion that may be influenced by changing solar activity, but the trend is upward. So there is no disagreement that since the mid-19th century average global temperatures have risen.
However, in mathematics, if you plot a linear trend from a low value in a series, you are invariably going to have an upward trend line. If you also “adjust” the original beginning values even lower while adjusting the ending values upward, your trend line will increase faster. There is disagreement about the validity of adjusting the temperature record in this manner. Again, it’s the definition of what “is” is… or what “was” was.
The major point of contention is the cause of the change. Because warming preceded major increases in CO2 by nearly a century, there are some who question the causation while acknowledging the correlation.
Another point of contention is the validity of projections from computer models which have consistently overstated warming versus what has been actually observed… but if we wait long enough, the predictions are absolutely going to be true. An example is: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094001
Another example is with regard to sea level rise: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100
Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).
“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.
“We’re were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.”
The gross simplification of climate dynamics to Δ(CO2) ≈ Δ(temperature) runs afoul of this:
Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler. – Albert Einstein
I don’t know if this is what Trump means by “scam”, but “great uncertainty” might be a better term.
If you look at the long-term climate trends, there was a very gentle decrease from the year 1000 through 1800 of about 0.012 degrees C per century. That very strong, consistent trend abruptly changed in the late 1800s and temperatures have shot up by 1 degree C in 100 years. In other words, 800 years of cooling was reversed overnight, with absolutely no explanation in the natural world.
“However, in mathematics, if you plot a linear trend from a low value in a series, you are invariably going to have an upward trend line.” this is true, however, only someone who knows nothing about statistics would do this (or you know how to intentionally mislead people). You don’t use 1 point in a long time series; you use a moving average, or some other measure of central tendency/trend. Hence why warming deniers always use 1998 as a base year to prove that warming hasn’t happened since then.
And warming has not preceded emissions by a century. Another common, but bogus claim: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
You’re really just putting a nice presentation on really easily researched claims.
First, a couple of points:
1) it’s just a happy coincidence that the global temperature record used to raise alarm about warming starts at the end of a very cold period… 1880.
2) the so-called “AGW causation” period is very short… less than 1/2 century. Given the geological relationship of warming causing atmospheric CO2 increases and the manipulation of the temperature record to significantly increase the recent past, one can put causation into the “uncertain” category.
There is little doubt that CO2 concentrations and temperature changes are correlated, but there is plenty of uncertainty as to the impact of the human 5% contribution given the huge natural variability (link from previous comment: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094001).
Regardless, the real issue boils down to whether or not the change in “global climate” is a concern. “Global climate” is an absurd concept. “Global average temperature” is just as meaningless. Regional and local climate changes are more importance. Does an increase in desert temperatures really mean anything, especially since past warming periods resulted in more rain and deserts turning into savannas? Would longer growing seasons in the northern hemisphere really be a catastrophe? Would improvements in human health (there are far more cold weather related deaths than hot weather related deaths) be so tragic? You can also see my previous comment for a link to a recent study cited in bbc.com that pushes back against the “coastal inundations” hype from the alarmists.
The only certainty about climate science appears to be the associated political “science”.
1. It wasn’t a “very cold period”, it was a very long period of very stable temperatures with a gentle slope downward, which, again, reversed extremely abruptly after the industrial revolution.
2. No, the causation period started when humans began to disrupt the natural carbon cycle. Significant volcanic activity reduced temperatures in the late 1800s through the early 1900s and the cooling effect of aerosols mitigated early CO2 forcing.
And your comment on global average temperature proves that you don’t know what you’re talking about. No scientist uses the “global average temperature”. They use average temperature anomaly. I would explain what that is, but I’ve already wasted enough keystrokes on your easily researched nonsense.
Uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty. That is the game. Say the science is “uncertain”, and delay the inevitable while the problem just gets worse for another 20 years. It was a wildly effective strategy for the chemical industry, the cigarette industry, and for the people who said acid raid was a hoax, too.
Scientists were predicting climate change due to GHG emissions in the late 1880’s. Were they playing politics, too? We all know what side turned this scientific matter into a political circus. It has culminated in certain senators throwing snowballs on capital hill and saying “it’s cold in January! there can’t be any global warming”.
Donald Trump is making a serious point in that quote, a point that can’t be so simply refuted by throwing up a temperature chart. Trump’s point is that a lot ( but not all) of climate change advocacy is corrupted by the enormous sums of money available from government or private donors. Huge sums are available to those who can provide evidence of a big problem but very little money goes to those who are skeptical. This asymmetry of funding produces perverse incentives, encouraging huge exaggerations if not outright falsehoods.
The late physics professor Harold Lewis made the same point that Trump is making, calling global warming a “scam” and the “most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist” in his letter of resignation to the American Physical Society. Here are some excerpts from his letter of resignation:
“[T]he money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare…. I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.”
No serious skeptic of climate change alarmism is disputing basic facts such as temperature charts nor questioning the good and legitimate scientific research that is done in this field. What we are disputing is whether the alarmist inferences can be reasonably drawn from the limited understanding that we have. Trump is right: too many people are chasing too many dollars in pursuit of the favor of the god of climate change.
This is an example of the non-scientific approach being used in universities.
The class is taught by professors in Genetic engineering, English (with old cooking recipe collections), and Sociology/Social Justice.
That’s pretty typical of the climate crowd. Professors who have no expertise are nonetheless forbidding any dissent. It’s a religion with them. Did you hear about Professor Parncutt, a music professor, who called for the execution of climate change deniers? He’s opposed to the death penalty in general, even for mass murderers. But climate change deniers merit special punishment.
rick, there is also an enormous amount of money tied up in the skeptic crowd, which includes fossil fuel and petro businesses, and their continued desire to remain a dominant position over time. lots of people chasing dollars to remain in the favor of the anti-climate change gods. it is foolish to argue the anti crowd is not funded. the reality is, even with funding, they have not been able to produce much in the way of convincing scientific research to support their position.
One could say that the alarmist camp has not been able to produce much in the way of convincing evident about AWG. A rough correlation without rigorous analysis of causation; models that are designed to backfit, but cannot project close to observed temperatures; sensational stories about drowned animals and coastlines and Antarctica melting when actual measurements show otherwise.
As I said before, no one is arguing against the observations that indicate a slight warming from a very cold period, but beyond that there is a vast gulf between doomsday predictions and reality.
Beyond all of that, there is the real possibility that continued warming may be quite beneficial overall. Nature, and especially humans, are quite adaptable.
A fair summary of the situation.
Once again you throw out your fact free analysis, just asserting that the money flowing to the skeptic crowd is comparable, without any evidence. Joanne Nova went through public sources to estimate the total amount spent on climate change from 1989 to 2009. The answer? A shocking $79 billion!!!!.
Wouldn’t that money have been better spent on cancer or vaccines in Africa?
rick, getting ones information from an organization whose mission is to deny climate change, and whose future funding depends upon continued promotion of denier propaganda, is problematic.
and i never said comparable. but it is sufficient to produce convincing scientific research to support their position, if it exists. but you will probably find less money spent on the denier side of the aisle, because even the exxon’s of the world have acknowledged the denier position is not correct. exxon may spend money on propaganda, but not on science they know to be flawed.
Your reply is very typical of the Left. Instead of taking issue with the specific facts I laid out, you instead attack the source. I was not endorsing the content of the publication I cited. I cited it because the author went to the trouble of compiling climate change spending from official sources. If you had taken a second to look at the numbers and sources, you should have seen that.
If anything, her estimate is way too low. There are official reports on the amount of climate change spending that are readily available. For example, this report from the White House to Congress reports the spending on climate change for fiscal years 2012-2014. As you can verify in Table 1, it is over $80 billion just in those 4 years. That does not count all the private foundation spending, international organizations, foreign governments, etc.
This is what Harold Lewis and Trump are talking about. For the spending to continue, there has to be a BIG PROBLEM.
Your reply is very typical of the Left. Instead of taking issue with the specific facts I laid out, you instead attack the source. I was not endorsing the content of the publication I cited. I cited it because the author went to the trouble of compiling climate change spending from official sources. If you had taken a second to look at the numbers and sources, you should have seen that.
If anything, her estimate is way too low. There are official reports on the amount of climate change spending that are readily available. For example, this report from the White House to Congress reports the spending on climate change for fiscal years 2012-2014. As you can verify in Table 1, it is over $80 billion just in those 4 years. That does not count all the private foundation spending, international organizations, foreign governments, etc.
This is what Harold Lewis and Trump are talking about. For the spending to continue, there has to be a BIG PROBLEM. Everyone feeding at the climate change trough has a strong incentive to keep it going by making sure the BIG PROBLEM remains a BIG PROBLEM.
rick, you try to insinuate that global climate research has been biased in favor of global warming, because you argue that is where the source of funding stands. thus that research should be considered biased and suspect. i simply pointed out, you have anti-climate change institute and author providing a source of information, but i should not consider that information biased, for the same reasons you insinuate? can’t have it both ways brother. and once again, i simply pointed out that there has been quite a bit of funding, or potential funding, in the anti-climate camp. but it has not produced any credible scientific data. the dearth of studies is very much related to the paucity of scientific validity of the anti-climate position.
Do you understand how ridiculous you look Rick? Global warming is a hoax because lots of money is being spent on studying it. That is your position. What a joke, but you think it is a serious position that everybody should just fall on the floor in abject respect for, it is so convincing.
Baffled and Barkley, Rick is absolutely correct. He is making a case for bias selection of grant requests. Baffled, you are hanging your hat on an argument that $70B versus a few $10s of millions results in equal coverage?
BTW, you clearly are not aware of the number of recent AGW skeptic papers published just this year. IIRC it is now 240 total papers (January-June), and this is early September. I even provided a link to one of the latest in the comment thread.
It is easy to make grossly inaccurate statements when you do little to no research.
Once again, Internet comments are disappointing; so many seem to illustrate the nasty side of human nature. We can all agree that the temperature change overall from 1880 on has not been large, but it’s very consistent. We are not so much interested in “true” or “real” global temperature because it varies all over the planet, it’s different on land, sea, northern vs. southern hemisphere, etc. We are interested in its effects. Coming from Galveston island, I see those harmful effects and I also see the poisonous effects of the propaganda that the oil & gas industries have put their money behind.
Unless the so-called Ike Dike is funded (it will protect a lot of oil tanks, refineries etc in Houston and its Eastern environs, in addition to protecting a large part of Galveston island, Galveston Bay and the ship channel) the area will suffer some devastating hurricane blows and much of the island will be underwater in 100 years- don’t really know how much because the data allow a range of predictions. We know that genetic mutations are a large factor in cancers, but can’t make precise predictions for the cancer mortality in Fukushima survivors in 2025.
Joanne Nova is about as reliable a source as Senator Inhofe. Money spent on atmospheric research has many benefits including improving weather prediction. It’s flat wrong to say that governments have put huge sums into ‘alamist theories of climate change’. There’s no question that atmospheric CO2 is rising steadily, along with methane and other greenhouse gasses. It appears that US gasoline consumption in 2016 may set an all time record. That will have consequences. My hero, Svante Arhenius, pointed out this problem before 1900, that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide would tend to raise temperatures. His guess as to the magnitude of the effect was far off base, but he was the first to write about it. He’s my hero, not because of that awkward paper, but because he persevered with his Ph.D. thesis at the University of Uppsala in spite of dogged opposition from his teachers who thought his ‘ionic theory’ was nonsense. They gave him a 4th degree pass and said that he was qualified only for high school teaching. He had proposed the theory of electrolytes, for which he received the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1903.
Bob, it is this kind of thinking that confuses: ” We can all agree that the temperature change overall from 1880 on has not been large, but it’s very consistent.”
“We are interested in its effects. Coming from Galveston island, I see those harmful effects …”
Consistently small temperature changes with harmful effects at Galveston? Can you show us the scientific evidence of the temperature linkages to the harmful effects at Galveston? Moreover can you show us the linkages and quantities for each of the anthro/natural drivers of temperature change?
I’m curious, because so much of the rhetoric assumes these linkages without ever discussing their various scientifically assigned values. It is important to define the cost benefits of any proposed improvements/solutions for that consistently small temperature change that we have just lived through.
One way to improve the quality of internet comments is to refrain from making statements such as “Joanne Nova is about as reliable a source as Senator Inhofe.” Your comment would have been much more effective if you showed that her numbers, which were compiled from official sources, are wrong. If anything, Nova underestimated the amount spent on climate change by a lot. See my comment to Baffles above for more details.
Bob Snodgrass, people like you is why we had the Spanish Inquisition.
There are many independent experts, who’ve questioned and shown the “science” is far from settled.
You’re fooling yourself with your certainty and willing to have others pay for your foolhardiness.
“You’re fooling yourself with your certainty and willing to have others pay for your foolhardiness.”
peak, if bob is wrong give me an estimate of the consequences.
if peak is wrong, give me an estimate of the consequences.
now tell me, who is willing to have others pay for ones foolhardiness? kind of like a banker who causes the financial crisis, but wants others to pay for the mistake and take the blame. irresponsible.
Baffling, haven’t you’ve done enough damage supporting poor policies.
I guess, you won’t be happy, unless there’s more bankrupt, homeless, and poor people.
peak, haven’t you done enough damage as a contributor to the financial crisis? you have shown an unwillingness to acknowledge the damage you have done in the past in that regard. that in itself should disqualify you from any other discussions regarding policy and consequences in the future, especially regarding a topic such as global warming, where you have no expertise whatsoever.
OK, I am going to throw my weight around here, especially since Rick Stryker and some others have shown themselves to be drooling ideologues.
I am not a professional climatologist. I am an economist. However, I have been off and on involved in multidisiplinary research with climatologists for over 40 years starting at the UW-Madison, with some of my co-researchers prominent “climate skeptics,” such as Patrick Michaels, now at Cato Insitute. I have also long known Fred Singer, father of the US weather satellite program who long argued that we had no warming. Indeed, I was involved at one point with those arguing that we were going into global cooling. It is now argued that only a few argued that back in the early 70s, but in fact in 1971 the academic literature was evenly split between warming and cooling, with this being seen as the competing effects of aerosols versus CO2. A major reason the warming crowd won out is that aerosols fall out of the air quickly, while CO2 stays up for a long time. As it is, we had a period of gradual global cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. There was a lot of hot weather in the 30s and 40s, think Dust Bowl.
So, even Pat Michaels agrees that we are seeing warming. He simply says that it is not going to be as great as some others say. Singer was denying warming, but after there was the adjustment of interpretation of the satellite data, of which he is probably the world’s leading expert, shifted to accepting that we are looking at warming. Anyone arguing that we are not currently in a global warming phase is just full of it, sorry, an ideologue or an idiot. Again, picking 1998 as a base point of measurement is immediately prima facie evidence of fraudulent analysis or blatant propaganda. I also note that even though the average is an upward trend, it is cooling in certain locations on the planet. There is not a uniform pattern around the world, and the Arctic is the epicenter of the greatest warming, something that was pointed out to me by Pat Michaels.
So, there are two related issues, which many, including many here, get confused with this more basic issue of whether or not the global average is a rising trend currently. That is how much of this is anthropocentric. Regarding that there is much less agreement. We do not know the proportion for sure, although it seems highly likely that at least some of it is. The obvious reason is that there is no obvious alternative explanation, especiallly given that the one major exogenous natural factor that has shown any noticeable change in the last few decades, changes in sunspots, suggests that we should be seeing cooking, not warming.
Finally, even if we accept that some substantial portion, not fully known, is AWG, there remains the policy issue, both in terms of how much should be done as well as how to do it. This is just enormously complicated, not the least because of these different effects around the world. So the parts of the world most damaged by warming are poorer tropical nations, such as Bangladesh, not to mention all those low lying island nations. But for the US and China actually have GDP gains for about another degree or so of temp increase due to reduced winter heating bills in more northerly parts.
Not simple at all. And the policy issue is also debatable, with various people, including some who should not be talking at all about this, such as climatologist James Hansen, weighing in for a carbon tax rather than cap and trade. As someone who was involved in the various first cap and trade system in the world back in the 1970s, on the Fox River in Wisconsin, I find some of the rhetoric around this push for a carbon tax as fairly mindless.
Finally, we have the problem of fat tails, that the distribution of climate outcomes almost certainly is kurtotic, exhibiting fat tails, not Gaussian. Martin Weitzmann has written very insightfully on this, and we do not have good answers for how to deal with this. In short, there are higher probabilities of more extreme outcomes on both the up and the down sides than we would expect assuming a normal distribution. These fat tails are there because the climate is a nonlinear dynamical system full of positive feedback effects, this being something that I have personally studied.
Oh, and to Steve K., well, the South China Sea situation is worrying, but I think forecasting a high probability of a war in the next year seems to be overdoing it, but, as I noted, irrelevant to all this.
So I’m not just an ideologue but a “drooling ideologue.” That’s a funny charge coming from someone whose idea of proper argumentation started with calling names and has now transitioned to dropping names. You are ignorantly arguing against propositions that people on your side of the debate don’t dispute, in a desperate attempt to defend global warming alarmism and you name call those who would disagree with you. You also attribute positions to people on the other side of the debate that they don’t have and then name call. Who is the ideologue again?
For example, you say “(a)nyone arguing that we are not currently in a global warming phase is just full of it, sorry, an ideologue or an idiot. Again, picking 1998 as a base point of measurement is immediately prima facie evidence of fraudulent analysis or blatant propaganda.” Well then, the IPCC scientists must be ideologues or idiots. The pause in warming is well-known and acknowledged by scientists. If you knew this subject better, you would realize that and not be wasting time name calling. For your edification on this topic, you should read the IPCC publication Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 9. Box 9.2 discusses the global mean temperature hiatus over the last 18 years now (it was written in 2013) and its implications for climate models. If you read carefully, you’ll see they refer to 1998 as a starting point.
You also think the skeptical arguments advanced on this blog are nothing more than “there is no global warming.” If you paid more attention to comments by Steven Kopits, Corev, Bruce Hall and others, including me, you’d realize that’s not the argument.
I in particular have never denied that anthropogenic warming has occurred. The question is rather how much it matters. In my comments in the past, I’ve stressed two problems with climate change predictions that lead me to substantial skepticism.
1) Inadequacy of climate models Future temperature projections rely very heavily on climate change models, which are problematic. If you have seen my past comments, you would know that I’ve noted that climate change models are massive mathematical models of the climate, which, at their core, are the solution of a massive fluid dynamics problem of the ocean and atmosphere involving the numerical solutions of partial differential equations. One significant problem with these models is that the discretizations of the PDEs are too coarse to properly simulate cloud microphysics, which are then just parameterized. But understanding cloud feedback is incredibly important, because small changes in the clouds can have very significant effects. There are many other problems with these models too.
2) Climate modeling is not scientific In science, you believe a theory when it can account not only for observations that have already been made, but also can predict correctly observations that have not yet been made. Climate models succeed on neither count. I don’t know whether the temperature will start to rise again. I won’t be surprised if it does and I won’t be surprised if it doesn’t, unlike many climate scientists. But the real significance of the global termperature lull is that the climate models are not able to account for it. That’s what the agonizing in Box 9.2 is really about. Climate models have trouble reproducing observations in sample. That is very troubling if we are going to use them to forecast at long horizons.
The problems I refer to above are problems with the real academic research, which is different from the world Trump is talking about: the larger climate world of cranks and charlatans who are continually amplified in the media–the Al Gores, the Bill Nyes, the armies of foundation advocates, politicians, and policy agency people. Economists such as William Nordhaus or Martin Weitzman base their analysis on the real academic research, which they seem to understand. But the problem is that they don’t understand it well enough.
Weitzman and Wagner’s recent book Climate Shock: The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet is a good example. Weitzman and Wagner emphasize all the uncertainty in climate modeling but they don’t go far enough. They take seriously the estimates of the “likely” temperature range from the climate models and their associated probabilities. Ultimately, their argument is simple. The probability distribution that comes out of climate modeling suggests a not insignificant risk of a global disaster, a probability that is likely larger because of fat tails. Therefore, we need to take out insurance in the form of a global carbon tax. But when I look at the details of the models I see speculation squared. Weitzman and Wagner take the models much too seriously. I don’t think we can reasonably estimate these probabilities at all based on the current state of knowledge.
I therefore do not support climate change policies. To me, it is the height of Western arrogance to tell the Chinese, Indian, or Brazilian citizen that he can’t drive a car like we do, and that he must live in a society that will not be able to attain the same standard of living that we have, all because of the flimsy climate models and the consequent chimerical policy prescriptions.
I will answer your questions regarding a SCS war in a longer article, probably in the National Interest.
As for Bangladesh, this from the BBC:
“Satellite images of Bangladesh over the past 32 years show that the country is growing annually by about 20 square kilometres (7.72 square miles), said Maminul Haque Sarker of the Dhaka-based Centre for Environment and Geographic Information Services.”
“Mr Sarkar said that in the next 50 years this could add up to the country gaining 1,000 square kilometres.”
This stuff is out there if you bother to go and check.
Read the story Barkley. You should all read it:
Obama’s customary exit from the plane came not from the usual door high on the fuselage, but instead from a lower portal. It seems there were no higher stairs available to roll up to the usual door.
The incident seemed to be part of a tug-of-war between the country’s advance teams, which flared further over who would have the final say about where the U.S. press could be stationed during Obama’s movements within the country.
According to media pool reports, filed by correspondents traveling with the president, a confrontation between White House staff and a member of the Chinese delegation devolved into a shouting match over where reporters traveling with Obama could stand as he was exiting Air Force One.
As the pool report explains:
“Pool was brought under the wing of AF1 per usual but the scene was not per usual. There were no stairs to the top door to AF1, instead President Obama exited via the lower level stairs so pool could hardly see him, and only for a split second as he exited at 2:30 p.m. A member of the Chinese delegation was screaming at White House staff from the moment pool got onto the tarmac. He wanted the U.S. press to leave.”
The Chinese, according to report, had set up a blue rope line under the wing of the plane. A Chinese official demanded the pool, which apparently was already in position behind the rope, to actually leave the arrival scene entirely.
And that’s when an unnamed U.S. official stepped in.
“At one point a White House official told [the screaming Chinese official] this was our president and our plane and the press wasn’t moving. The [Chinese official] yelled, ‘this is our country.’
He yelled at another White House official and got testy with [U.S. United Nations Ambassador] Susan Rice and [Deputy National Security Adviser] Ben Rhodes, seeming to try to block them from walking closer to the arrival scene after they lifted the blue rope and walked to the other side of it, nearer to POTUS.”
Luckily, that kerfuffle ended without much incident and the president’s motorcade was moving within a few minutes.
Or perhaps, that was just the end of round one.
In a subsequent pool report, there were details of yet another verbal altercation, and a scene where two Chinese officials almost came to fisticuffs with one another. It took place at a security checkpoint at Westlake Statehouse, ahead of President Obama’s arrival.
The report says American advance teams including White House staff, protocol officers and Secret Service agents, attempting to enter separately from the traveling press, engaged in “heated arguments” with Chinese officials for about 15 minutes.
“U.S. officials could be heard arguing in Chinese with Chinese security officials over how many Americans could be allowed to go through security at a time. How many people the White House were allowed to be in building before the president’s arrival. Which U.S. officials were on which list in a folder with a thick pile of name lists.
“The president is arriving here in an hour,” one White House staffer was overheard saying in exasperation.
“As the disagreement escalated, a chinese official assisting the Americans grew angered by how guards were treating the white house staff and began yelling, nearly coming to blows with one of the chinese security officials.
“You don’t push people. No one gave you the right to touch or push anyone around,” he yelled in Chinese at one of the Chinese security officials. Another Chinese official trying to help U.S. officials stepped between the two who were arguing once the security official began approaching, looking like he was going to throw a punch.
“Calm down please. Calm down,” pleaded a White House official.
“Stop, please,” said a foreign ministry official in chinese. “There are reporters here.”
China’s leaders have been accused of delivering a calculated diplomatic snub to Barack Obama after the US president was not provided with a staircase to leave his plane during his chaotic arrival in Hangzhou before the start of the G20.
Chinese authorities have rolled out the red carpet for leaders including India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, the South Korean president, Park Geun-hye, Brazil’s president, Michel Temer, and the British prime minister, Theresa May, who touched down on Sunday morning.
But the leader of the world’s largest economy, who is on his final tour of Asia, was forced to disembark from Air Force One through a little-used exit in the plane’s belly after no rolling staircase was provided when he landed in the eastern Chinese city on Saturday afternoon.
When Obama did find his way on to a red carpet on the tarmac below there were heated altercations between US and Chinese officials, with one Chinese official caught on video shouting: “This is our country! This is our airport!”
“The reception that President Obama and his staff got when they arrived here Saturday afternoon was bruising, even by Chinese standards,” the New York Times reported.
Jorge Guajardo, Mexico’s former ambassador to China, said he was convinced Obama’s treatment was part of a calculated snub.
“These things do not happen by mistake. Not with the Chinese,” Guajardo, who hosted presidents Enrique Peña Nieto and Felipe Calderón during his time in Beijing, told the Guardian.
“I’ve dealt with the Chinese for six years. I’ve done these visits. I took Xi Jinping to Mexico. I received two Mexican presidents in China. I know exactly how these things get worked out. It’s down to the last detail in everything. It’s not a mistake. It’s not.”
Guajardo added: “It’s a snub. It’s a way of saying: ‘You know, you’re not that special to us.’ It’s part of the new Chinese arrogance. It’s part of stirring up Chinese nationalism. It’s part of saying: ‘China stands up to the superpower.’ It’s part of saying: ‘And by the way, you’re just someone else to us.’ It works very well with the local audience.
“Why [did it happen]?” the former diplomat, who was ambassador from 2007 until 2013, added. “I guess it is part of Xi Jinping playing the nationalist card. That’s my guess.”
Bill Bishop, a China expert whose Sinocism newsletter tracks the country’s political scene, agreed that Obama’s welcome looked suspiciously like a deliberate slight intended “to make the Americans look diminished and weak”.
“It sure looks like a straight-up snub,” Bishop said. “This clearly plays very much into the [idea]: ‘Look, we can make the American president go out of the ass of the plane.’”
I am going to add just one more point. There are two issue on which pretty much every intelligent person outside the US thinks that lots of people in the US are simply nuts in connection with. One is guns and the other is global climate. It is not unreasonable to debate the amount of human input to the current warming trend and it is not unreasonable to debate how much and how we should do about it. But to simply claim that “global warming is a hoax” is an unscientific and irresponsible position that is viewed with contempt and disgust by pretty much everybody around the world outside the US, and commentators in the US really need to face this hard fact, including those of you more worried about wars here or there.
Barkley, calling people names, who rationally disagree with you, and criticizing the right of Americans to protect themselves with guns doesn’t strengthen your case. Beyond that, why do you assume mankind can or should do anything about global warming?
Fossil fuels, which raised living standards and extended lifespans dramatically, is a depletable resource. The use of fossil fuels will wind down and end. Why spend or lose trillions of dollars accelerating the inevitable in an attempt to reduce CO2 or make the world colder?
To claim that “global warming will wipe out mankind in the very near future” if we don’t impose masses carbon taxes–put differently, to play the global warming chicken little card the way Democrat play the race card–is an unscientific and irresponsible position that SHOULD be viewed with contempt and disgust by everybody around the world, and commentators in the US really need to face this hard fact, especially those of you less worried about wars here or there.
The Europeans are wrong about gun policy too. I’m happy to debate it but Menzie rarely brings that topic up.
Very interesting post. Does anyone have more links to the research etc on this?
Paul, there are many, but you need to be more specific, because when we talk climate change the subject gets expanded into many non-climate related areas. Just read the previous comments and the areas covered.
Here’s another data point to buttress the point that Trump was making. The Climate Change Business Journal calculates that the climate change is now a $1.5 Trillion global industry.
OK. I’ll refer to education Scotland, http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/exploringclimatechange/. More than 95% of climate scientists regard the issue of climate change and its causes as settled. Their scientific journals show this. However, some individuals and some media spokesmen, especially in the US, insist that it is not settled. The American Geophysical Union has more than 60,000 members from over 100 countries and publishes 20 journals. They and many other scientific societies have urged the US Congress to take action now on climate change. You might review eos.org, their continuously updated online source of earth and space science news
This blog has quite a few ideologues. No doubt some are related to fossil fuel industries. I see no benefit from back and forth exchanges with you. I have lived and worked in England; I agree that most Europeans think and say that Americans are nuts about guns and climate change, as mentioned by Barkley Rosser. That doesn’t settle anything, but it should be noted. Time is on the side of science, but time is not on the side of those hoping to minimize the damaging effects of climate change. It’s easy to see glaciers shrinking in Glacier National Park. Nobody that I know claims that global warming will wipe out mankind. I debated an anti-evolutionist in 1997, in my then community of Jackson, MS. Such in person debates can be useful, especially among people who will continue to be neighbors and need to be civil.
I have no power over anyone. All that I can do is vote, talk and write. I laugh at references to the Spanish inquisition.
If you believe the science is settled, then how much is the human factor and each other factor contributing to global warming? Please list each factor.
If the model shows humans are a significant factor, why do you believe CO2 should be reduced, if it can be reduced?
You may want to read the following article to get started:
Bob, I thought the number was 97% 😉 . don’t you stay current? Even your reference is years old.
I refer you to Rick Stryker’s comments re: ideologues. Your comments and the depth of your knowledge from which they are based serve as examples.
It’s estimated human activity is responsible for less than 6% of greenhouse emissions. When water vapor is included, it’s much less than 1%.
I think human activity is responsible for about 50% of net CO2 emissions growth. There is a very large carbon cycle on the planet, to be sure, and human activity is a small part of that. But I am pretty sure you can track about half of the growth of atmospheric C02 to human causes. I actually looked this up at some point.
Steven, humans emit 3% of CO2 and nature emits 97% of CO2. Are you saying human CO2 is absorbed more slowly? Can you tell the difference between a molecule created by humans and a molecule created by nature (of course, human CO2 went from virtually zero to 3%, while CO2 in nature was 100% before humans with huge variations or cycles). CO2 is CO2. Your assumption sounds like a giant leap of faith.
An increase of human CO2 from virtually zero to 3% is not a large increase, like a small increase in the 97% of natural CO2. There’ve been much greater variations of natural CO2. There’s no doubt humans added more CO2. However, it’s relatively small.
The world has a very large carbon cycle associated with the seasons, ie, summer to winter, particularly in the Northern hemisphere. Adjusting for seasonality, and assuming constant temperatures, there should be no net trend in atmospheric CO2. This is clearly untrue, as atmospheric CO2 has been rising steadily at 2 ppm per year.
It is also true that we’re putting a large amount of CO2 into the air from sequestered sources, ie, coal, oil and gas, which are structural and not seasonal additions to CO2. This number is quantifiable, indeed, it is quantified.
As I recall, about half anthropogenic emissions remain in the atmosphere, with the remainder absorbed in various CO2 sinks. In addition, we expect CO2 to increase with temperature itself, and therefore part of the increase in CO2 is expected from the LIA rebound.
I ran this exercise at one point, and about half of net CO2 additions to the atmosphere, as I recall, came pretty convincingly from anthropogenic sources. I don’t think this should be a surprise. We emit a huge amount of CO2 around the globe.
Now, I personally don’t think the amount is particularly scary or material, based on the UAH numbers and the lack of other effects which I find particularly convincing. But I am under the impression human activity has added perhaps 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere since the 1800s.
By the way, I think you actually can tell the difference between ACO2 and natural CO2 owing to isotopes. Look it up.
Here’s another way to think about it. We skeptics argue that there has been no warming since 1998 (or wasn’t until this last El Nino). If we believe natural warming causes increases in atmospheric CO2, then there should have been no increase in CO2 since 1998. This is untrue. The rate of accumulation in the atmosphere has actually accelerated–not much, but measurably–and in line with increasing emissions from China. If temperatures have not changed, then we lack a cause other than manifest anthropogenic emissions.
Steven, your assertions and math don’t make sense.
Are you aware 99% of the carbon is the lighter C-12?
steven, i appreciate that you are coming around to accept what has been known for quite some time in the scientific community-man made warming is having an impact on global climate. you are still hesitant to acknowledge the magnitude, but you are nevertheless heading in the right direction. it is really a waste of time to discuss these issues with the likes of peak and others, who will never change their mind in light of any evidence. you separate yourself from such fools, to your benefit.
when looking at it from a risk analysis perspective, the choices should be quite clear. if global warming proponents are wrong, we have simply pushed the world economy into a renewable energy era at a faster pace. in the long run, this is good since the use of depletable fossils fuels is not a long term solution anyway. if the deniers are wrong, you are looking at an era where more than just the energy source will change, drastically. worldwide infrastructure will need to be rebuilt. whose mistake are you willing to live with, and pass on to your children?
I am certainly not “coming around” to anything here. I am reminding Peak that the long-standing ‘official’ skeptic position does not deny that CO2 has been increasing, No one contests the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements in any meaningful way, in part because these largely correspond to other CO2 measurements around the globe, and the further because the Hawaii team has never given skeptics, to the best of knowledge, reason to question their integrity (as opposed to the Hansen experience with GISS).
No one doubts the amount of non-cyclical CO2 we pump into the atmosphere (ie, other than, say, agriculture or deforestation, which may count as a net negative, but which also may not be permanent). Structural additions to atmospheric CO2 can be measured with a pretty high degree of precision, as they come principally from oil, gas and coal, the production and consumption of which are well-documented globally. I could give you seven sources off the top of my head. Five of them are oil companies.
To the best of my knowledge, ‘official’ skeptics do not assert that the planet can ‘sterilize’ anthropogenic CO2 in real time, ie, that man-made emissions are absorbed within a single seasonal cycle. And finally, while we would expect CO2 to rise with temperature, atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise–at a modestly increasing pace–during a 20 years stretch when skeptics like myself argue that temperatures have gone nowhere. You can’t have it both ways.
I am almost always in agreement with Peak on the vast majority of topics. Not on this occasion. The mainstream skeptic position does not deny that we are putting, by historical standards, a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. We do not deny that it may be resident for a long time. We do not even deny that, ceteris paribus, limiting CO2 emissions might be prudent.
What we deny is ceteris paribus. We deny that the costs of incremental CO2, first, are all negative (see CoRev’s comment on wheat), and second, that costs are large. AGW costs are not nearly large enough to compensate for immediate losses of welfare due to lower carbon fuels consumption. If Barkley wanted to argue a climate change position, he could say, “See, the hurricane cycle has collapsed, with a record hurricane drought in the US. As US hurricanes are by far the largest component of global catastrophic weather events, climate change is leading to a more benign environment.” That’s actually true, if we look at the ten year historical record. (See my analysis: http://www.prienga.com/blog/2015/10/9/fact-checking-mark-carneys-climate-claims) Now, I don’t think the change is permanent, but if I wanted to argue climate change, that might be my primary line of reasoning today. The bad news for the AGW crowd, however, is that the sign is wrong. AGW in this case would be leading to fewer, not more, catastrophic climate events.
So, to reiterate, the mainstream skeptic position does not deny human carbon emissions, their magnitude, nor their role (at least in some part) in raising atmospheric CO2 levels.
“So, to reiterate, the mainstream skeptic position does not deny human carbon emissions, their magnitude, nor their role (at least in some part) in raising atmospheric CO2 levels.”
actually steven, when push comes to shove most of the mainstream skeptics retrench in the denial mode. that is why they are called deniers. mostly it has to do with psychology, can’t admit when they are wrong and the other side is right. you may think “mainstream” skeptics view the world in a similar way, but the last year in politics should make you redefine what it means to be “mainstream”, and would make you an endangered species. your view is by no means “mainstream skeptic”.
“And finally, while we would expect CO2 to rise with temperature, atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise–at a modestly increasing pace–during a 20 years stretch when skeptics like myself argue that temperatures have gone nowhere. You can’t have it both ways.”
it is convenient for you to ignore the steady increase in sea level and ocean heat content during that “hiatus”. in reality, “you can’t have it both ways” is a bogus claim if you consider all of the data in front of you. temperature has not “gone nowhere”. the earth has continued to absorb more heat than it releases.
Why do you continue to use 1998 as a base year for comparing global average temperature increases? You yourself have noted that it was the peak of a major El Nino. Really, it has been pointed out to you by me that this completely damages your credibility and makes you sound like one of the nut cases. I happen to think that you are not a nut case as you make many reasonable arguments and provide much accurate information.
So, I strongly suggest that you just cut this stuff out about 1998 as a base year for comparison. It simply destroys your credibility, and it was the main trigger for the harshness of my previous remarks. If you keep it up, then consider my harsh remarks to be fully intended and deserved, and worse.
Baffled, you are arguing via assertions. Please show us where in this thread: “skeptics retrench in the denial mode.” Just what is the denial mode? Show us!
Barkley, IIRC you are the only one referencing the “pause” since 1998. Steven referenced 1998 as the previous record year. You are arguing a straw man of your own making.
I know McKitrick, Lindzen, Monckton and a few others. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a lot of difference between their views and mine.
I discuss sea levels at the link.
Regarding base year, let me quote Slugs:
“Overall the satellite chart shows a very gentle rise in global temps since 1979 and no obvious trend since 1998. Basically the satellite data tells a story of a level shift in the late 1990s and not much additional warming since then.”
Slugs then impugns satellite credibility, but I could do as much or more for HadCrut and even more so, GISS.
In any event, I could not have said it better than Slugs did.
And speaking of Slugs…
The North Koreans fired three sub launched nuclear capable missiles into Japan’s exclusive economic zone yesterday. It appears these were Chinese JL-1 missiles.
And further, it appears China has sent vessels to begin construction at Scarborough Shoal. From the New York Times:
“An unusually large number of Chinese vessels have been positioned close to a disputed reef in the South China Sea near the coast of the Philippines for the last week, despite warnings by the United States that China should stay away.
“The Philippine Defense Department has photographs of four Chinese Coast Guard ships, and six other vessels, less than a mile from Scarborough Shoal, which is claimed by the Philippines and China, the defense minister, Delfin Lorenzana, said in an interview.
“The presence of the Chinese ships during the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hangzhou, China, where President Obama and President Xi Jinping met on Saturday, seemed particularly provocative.
“President Obama specifically warned Mr. Xi at a meeting in Washington in March not to start building an island at Scarborough Shoal. White House officials said that Mr. Obama planned to deliver the same message to Mr. Xi at their meeting in Hangzhou.
“American officials had been waiting to see what China would do around Scarborough Shoal after the summit meeting, assuming that the Chinese would not act sooner in the interest of preserving a seamless conference. The appearance of ships while global leaders were still in Hangzhou was not expected.
“The meeting had already been rocked by a chaotic arrival when the Chinese did not provide a rolling staircase for President Obama to disembark from the main door of Air Force One on his arrival in Hangzhou on Saturday.”
Both the missile launches and Scarborough Shoal incident are occurring during a G20 meeting.
Slugs, would you care to interpret these events for us?
steven, we discussed your blog article commenting on sea level rise in the past. i will reiterate, global sea level and ocean heat content are shown to be rising-there is no hiatus. it was extremely disingenuous to use a cherry picked data point to argue against the rise in sea level. very disingenuous. if you want to be taken seriously, and i believe that you do, such arguments make you appear very foolish, and a hack. don’t do that. sea levels rise due to ice melt runoff and thermal expansion. you are arguing against basic physics.
Lindzen et al are the extreme at one end. I think it is reasonable to say there was a pause in atmospheric warming between about 2005 and 2010, but the upward trend has resumed since then, and during that pause, deep ocean temperatures were rising more rapidly than expected.
Yes, the Chinese have behaved badly towards Obama, but he is a lame duck. This is not the same as a shooting war next year, although nobody knows what will happen.
Lindzen is straight down the middle in the skeptic camp, as is McKitrick.
Monckton is just an unusual character. I had an opportunity to chat with him one night at 3 am in Sicily in a converted monastery. Don’t do something like that every day.
I think Obama is and has been judged as weak. Xi thinks he can push Obama around, and so far, he’s been right!
Obama’s view is that China needs to grow up and take responsibility, and he’s absolutely right. I even wrote an article on that topic: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-should-push-american-style-hegemony-17238
Nevertheless, there comes a point at which it’s put up or shut up. If the Chinese are allowed to build at Scarborough Shoal, the American alliance system is dead.
Donald is wrong about a lot. So it is extremely amusing that Menzie picks one of the very few examples where Trump is 100% correct.
The mathematics and physics of atmospheric science is not that advanced and in fact it is easy oversimplified arm waving waffle compared to the other real solid hard core physics that I studied in college. I studied atmospheric physics.
The evidence for man-made global warming is just not there and all the atmospheric models have long proven to be woefully over catastrophic and completely wrong vs. measurements.
The whole thing is a scam. Cry wolf.
It seems that PeakTrader is having difficulty with the elementary concept of stocks vs flows. Why am I not surprised by his confusion?
Joseph, I think, it’s a giant leap of faith to assign large responsibility of CO2 in the atmosphere to the 3% emitted by humans.
There are other explanations:
PeakTrader, you provide a link to the guy who calls climate scientists “global warming Nazis”, who signed a document called An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.” Who also denies the science of biological evolution.
His basic shtick is that there can be no human caused climate change because God has his hand on the tiller. I think I will get my science elsewhere.
Joseph, you have done the traditional attack the message/messenger versus actually refute the message. Since you prefer to discuss his religious beliefs, why not answer what he said so many years ago? What you have done, however, is attack him with your own unsupported “AGW religious” believes. Spencer’s arguments were:
“In fact, it turns out that these large year-to-year fluctuations in the rate of atmospheric accumulation are tied to temperature changes, which are in turn due mostly to El Nino, La Nina, and volcanic eruptions. And as shown in the next figure, the CO2 changes tend to follow the temperature changes, by an average of 9 months. This is opposite to the direction of causation presumed to be occurring with manmade global warming, where increasing CO2 is followed by warming. ”
“If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?”
Which is why I ask so many “alarmists” to just do the math.
“…the experts will claim that this is all bogus, because they have computer models of the carbon budget that can explain all of long term rise in CO2 as a result of fossil fuel burning alone.
But, is that the ONLY possible model explanation? Or just the one they wanted their models to support?…
If an expert in this subject sees a major mistake I’ve made in the above analysis, e-mail me and I’ll post an update, so that we might all better understand this issue. ”
No such update was made.
Joseph, the religious fanatics (like Skeptical Science, although the internet is flooded with them), who believe the “science” is settled, are very active in their vicious attacks and massive propaganda against credible and independent scientists.
Their goal is to dominate the narrative and crush any dissent.
Joseph, since you mentioned “global warming Nazis,” here’s a site for you:
Spencer only referred to “Global Warming Nazis” after he was attacked as a “denier.” Spencer was outraged that those who disagreed with him would try to associate him with Holocaust denial. Since people were implicitly calling Spencer a Nazi be dismissing him as a “denier,” he decided to call them a Nazi back.
Just for 2slugs, who has a favorite comment re: this issue: http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/record-hottest-year-means-record-bumper-wheat-crop/ Just to emphasize the message record-hottest-year-means-record-bumper-wheat-crop
Joseph’s comment shows once again the double standard of the Left as well as their propensity for ad hominem attack. Because Roy Spencer is an evangelical Christian, Joseph dismisses him as someone who thinks that man-made climate change can’t happen because of God’s influence in the world. But of course Spencer has explicitly denied that he thinks climate change can’t happen because of God’s intervention. But if evangelical Christians agree with climate change alarmism, are they also dismissed? No, they are allowed to openly discuss their religious beliefs and are celebrated.
For example, Sir John Houghton is the Nobel-prize sharing former chairman of the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the IPCC. He was the lead editor of the first 3 IPCC reports. He was chairman of the UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Vice President of the World Meteorological association, President of the Royal Meteorological Society, and Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Oxford. He is the author of “The Physics of Atmospheres” and well-known as author of the series “Global Warming: The Complete Briefing.” Houghton is the grand panjandrum of climate science.
Sir John Houghton is also an evangelical Christian.
Houghton explicitly brings Christianity into the debate in Chapter 8 of Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, in the sections “Stewards of the Earth” and “The Will To Act.” Houghton is also quoted in the Sunday Telegraph in 1995 in an article entitled Moral Outlook: Earthquake, Wind, and Fire, saying
“God does show anger. When he appeared to Elijah, there was an earthquake, wind, and fire.”
“God tries to coax and woo but he also uses disasters. Human sin may be involved; the effect will be the same. If we want good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster.”
Climate scientist and climate change evangelist Katharine Hayhoe makes no secret of her evangelical Christianity and she is celebrated for it by the Left. Hayhoe won the American Geophysical Union’s Science Communication Award in 2014 and was also honored by Time magazine as one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People. Hayhoe and her evangelical pastor husband are also the the authors of A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions.
Apparently, Houghton’s and Hayhoe’s Christian beliefs have not discredited their scientific beliefs. This is the double standard.
Beyond the double standard issue, there is the more important point raised by Corev–the Left’s continuing use of the ad hominem attack. We should not dismiss Houghton’s scientific views just because Houghton believes that God is going to punish us for our global warming sins, much as He brought forth the Great Flood described in the Old Testament to punish mankind’s wickedness. Houghton is a serious scientist and his scientific views should be judged on their own merits. In the same way, so should Spencer’s scientific views be judged on their own merits.
Why we skeptics laugh at the “alarmists” arguments: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/05/distinguishing-between-safe-or-dangerous-warming-is-easy-dangerous-warming-is-red/#sthash.nwODHIjh.dpbs
and its definitive graph: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Holocene-Mann-Hockey-Stick.jpg
Since all warming/weather is local the article shows many, many locales in most parts of the world. This is just one of the article’s many complementary paleo graphs to the above: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Esper-et-al-2012.jpg
It concludes with:
““Peak Holocene temperatures occurred prior to 5.0 ka [5,000 years ago], a time when overall aquatic and terrestrial biological production was high. Chironomid-inferred summer air temperatures reached up to 7.5°C during this period. The region of Lake JR01 cooled over the mid- to late Holocene, with high biological production between 6.1 and 5.4 ka. Biological production decreased again at ~ 2 ka and the rate of cooling increased in the past 2 ka, with coolest temperatures occurring between 0.46 and 0.36 ka [460 and 360 years ago], coinciding with the Little Ice Age. Although biological production increased in the last 150 yr, the reconstructed temperatures do not indicate a warming during this time“
Just for Baffled this is not a skeptic reverting to denial, this is what the “science” actually says. Y’ano, that science you folks so often exalt? Yes, we do laugh at y’all!
Sorry, Rick. There are lots of scientists who have pointed out the errors and mistakes in Spencer’s story. You can find them if you are interested, but there are not enough hours in the day to waste my time on pontifications about the biological carbon cycle from a guy who denies the fundamental principles of biology.
I’m so old I can remember when all the climate denialists could talk about was HIATUS! There is no warming!
Haven’t heard much about that recently.
Joseph, the reason you hear little about the hiatus now, is because the record el Nino has caused the mathematical trend to temporarily end. But, it is most likely to reoccur. The hiatus should reappear in a few months if we have a near normal (depth and/or length) la Nina. The hiatus is a mathematical construct of trend analysis as is the so often cited warming trend which starts from the LIA. 😉
Since you can remember past hiatus discussions do you remember the claims at/after the past two el Ninos, 2005/06 and 2010? The hiatus was over then also.
As you said: “Sorry, Joseph. There are lots of scientists who have pointed out the errors and mistakes in the CAGW story. You can find them if you are interested, but there are not enough hours in the day to waste my time on pontifications about CAGW from a guy who denies the fundamental principles of SCIENCE”, and has a religious belief in CAGW.
>97% of all scientists believe in basic AGW. FEW actually believe in CAGW. That belief is maintained by the CAGW religious zealots which seldom actually review the science.
as a friendly reminder, there is no hiatus in global warming if one also considers sea level rise and ocean heat content. considering those items represent much larger heat capacity than the atmosphere, they should be rather important to anybody considering the implications of global climate change.
The satellite data are certainly one data point. The sea level satellites are considered to be in the hands of ‘unfriendlies’, and the upward trend appears to be largely an artifact of adjustments.
On the other hand, the Battery Park tidal gauge clearly shows a pause, as does the Wisconsin terrestrial record. Now maybe all that heat went into the oceans. OK, then either it doesn’t matter or eventually it will emerge and show up in the satellite record.
you can follow the conspiracy theorists if you want. i hear trump will open an new agency if elected, the department of conspiracy theories and lies. apply for a management position if you believe in joan.
but back in the real world, outside of conspiracy theories, the data clearly indicates rising sea levels and increased ocean heat content. this does not occur in a “hiatus” of global warming.
You have sent me to an advocacy site.
One of the very worst in the climate business:
Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ( = GISS. He is Hansen’s successor. See my comment above.)
Here’s a letter to the NASA administrator complaining about Hansen’s and Schmidt’s activities:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
“You have sent me to an advocacy site.”
no. i sent you to the data. apparently you were not interested.
but you are welcome to explore the site further, you may learn something. just a note, the nasa site is supported by jpl, which is managed by the california institute of technology. i would not characterize them as an “advocacy” group. they have 35 nobel prizes from their alumni and faculty. i think they know something about science. certainly more than joan.
This timescale 1880 – 2016 is totally nonsense.
Look at the timescale @ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10k.html,
and you will realize that a warmer climate is the best what could happen to the planet and mankind.
Unfortunately, I do not think that our climate”scientists” have an idea and can have an idea about
how this complex interactive system named earth climate works. This climate hoax is all mostly political propaganda for profit opportunists.
Hopefully my heating bill will be reduced in the future, less gas heating consumption. But I doubt that earth’s climate cares about my wishes, or even the wishes of mankind and our doing.
“Unfortunately, I do not think that our climate”scientists” have an idea and can have an idea about
how this complex interactive system named earth climate works.” What a ridiculous statement on every level. Basically, you’re saying “I don’t understand it, therefore no one else can understand it”.
Humans evolved during a very long period of very stable temperatures. We’ve never experienced the kind of heat we are seeing now, and the entire range of forecasts is for heat we should not hope to experience.
“Hopefully my heating bill will be reduced in the future, less gas heating consumption. But I doubt that earth’s climate cares about my wishes, or even the wishes of mankind and our doing.”
Selfish, incoherent, rambling nonsense.