Despite the Trump Administration’s best attempts to bury this report, you should read it.
Some people will dismiss the output of a government interagency report. The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine Review notes:
The Committee was impressed by the accuracy of information and thorough discussion of the predominant aspects of climate change and impacts presented in the draft NCA4. The 1,506-page draft report provides a strong foundation of climate science and a solid discussion of climate change impacts occurring or likely to occur in the United States. The topics are wellselected and logically organized around key messages. The introduction of new national topic and regional chapters since the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3) is a welcome addition and improves the comprehensiveness of the assessment. The new national topic chapter, “Sectoral Interdependencies, Multiple Stressors, and Complex Systems” is an excellent addition because it facilitates discussion of the inherent challenges introduced by climate change in interlinked systems. …
Raising the cost of energy dramatically will not put a dent in slowing global warming.
It’s inevitable – we’re fortunate not entering another ice age.
PeakTrader: The competition is tough, but I do believe this is the most idiotic statement you have ever made. Do you have a shred of evidence to support your assertion?
Menzie Chinn, what percentage of global warming is caused by humans?
From what the mean temperature of the Earth was in 1800, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, I would say about 95%. This fellow says 101% since the overall trend right now should be toward a cooler Earth due to orbital cycles which have driven climate the last 2,000,000 years.
“The Earth should probably be cooling, at least, that’s what the Milankovich cycles and historical variation and recent temperature charts all indicate.
See XKCD and related question on XKCD chart, and temperature chart over the last 800,000 years. Source.
Now, it should be pointed out that the Milankovich cycles don’t line up in perfect synchronicity, so no two warm periods and no two ice ages should be exactly alike, but there are similarities, like a steady cooling after a warm period. Earth has been gradually cooling for roughly the last 7,000 years, and this is due to the gradual changes in the Earth’s orbit per XKCD. (scroll to 5,000 bce – see note).
If Earth cooled 1°C in 6,500 years and is due to cool 4°C in the next 10-30,000 years as the next ice age comes along, we can ballpark estimate 1 degree of cooling per 5,000 years, and if we use an estimate of 2 degrees warming by 2,100 and climate change took hold in the 1980s, that’s 1 degree every 60 years current rate of warming.
So, by my estimate, man is responsible for 101% of the current warming and Earth’s natural cycles are shaving about 1% off man made climate change. To say it’s all us is accurate enough for me. There’s currently no natural warming of the Earth as far as I can tell, Earth should be cooling. Granted there’s variation, like the current solar cycle is a few tenths of a degree warmer than the maunder minimum that is believed to be the cause of the little ice age and our relative lack of major volcanic activity for much of this century might have a slight warming effect, so precise numbers are hard to pin down, but I think 101% man, -1% natural is pretty close to accurate.” Forest and grass fires & Volcanic eruptions, to the extent they put dust and SO2 into the upper Troposphere and lower Stratosphere have cooling effects, at least for a short term. Of course dust and soot from these events dropping on ice and snow reduces the Albedo effect and warms in the medium and long term. The Sun, in a cooling cycle, also right now is slightly slowing the human driven climate change. https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
https://ncse.com/library-resource/how-much-does-human-activity-affect-climate-change
Folks like Peak should start wondering where all those people in the tropics are going to go to live when their countries become unlivable over the next 25 years.
Sherparik, sshhhh, pgl doesn’t like estimates for longer periods than months: ” Earth has been gradually cooling for roughly the last 7,000 years, and this is due to the gradual changes in the Earth’s orbit per XKCD. (scroll to 5,000 bce – see note).”
BTW, we think orbital mechanics is the main driver, but as you said: “… it should be pointed out that the Milankovich cycles don’t line up in perfect synchronicity,…”
You also made the classic mistake of taking smoothed long term data and compared to a peak which may be less than the smoothing period, or at least within at best a few smoothing periods. You must compare peaks and valleys of the raw data where raw data is available, or at least smooth both at the same periodicity. Otherwise you get hockey stick graphs. 😉
Sherparick, you’re ignoring or discounting two powerful natural warming cycles running simultaneously, and other influential factors.
The end of the Pleistocene Epoch. “During the last glacial maximum, 21,000 years ago, the sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today.” The ice sheet in New York was a mile deep. “The ice sheets profoundly affected Earth’s climate by causing drought, desertification, and a large drop in sea levels.”
And, the Little Ice Age ended around 1850.
Moreover, there are changes in the sun’s energy output, changes in the earth’s distance to the sun, changes in the earth’s tilt, different ocean currents, etc. that affect climate.
Human influence is small compared to natural forces.
“Folks like Peak should start wondering where all those people in the tropics are going to go to live when their countries become unlivable over the next 25 years.”
peak is not concerned, because we will have a great big, beautiful wall to keep them out. paid for by mexico. or he won’t be concerned, because he will be dead of old age by then.
I dunno. Sammy thinks I wrote this report. I’d love to take credit but no – the authors know more about this topic than I do.
Menzie. You’re kidding, right? Did you really expect PeakTrader to advance a reasoned and coherent argument? He always pronounces without evidence in his best ex cathedra voice.
2slugbaits, I’ve provided plenty of evidence to support my statements.
However, with climate change, there’s no real evidence to support humans have a significant and lasting effect.
I’ve shown before, most scientists believe the human impact on climate change is unknown or small.
And, humans likely cannot in any practical way reduce the earth’s temperature by a significant amount.
PeakTrader humans likely cannot in any practical way reduce[sic] the earth’s temperature
I think you meant “increase” rather than “reduce.”
Humans don’t increase the earth’s temperature; but rather CO2 and other GHGs increase earth’s temperature. What humans do is increase the GHG concentrations. And very few climate scientists who aren’t being paid by the Koch Brothers or Big Oil/Big Coal deny that increasing GHGs into the atmosphere will make the earth warmer. The uncertainty is in the rate at which warming will occur, not the direction. We know that we’re sending future generations to hell, we just don’t know for sure when they’ll arrive. Future generations won’t thank us, but then as an aging failed banker you probably don’t care about future generations.
wow peakloser, you created an entire response with absolutely no truth.
1. you have not provided plenty of evidence. in fact, none.
2. there is very real evidence to support humans impact on climate change.
3. most scientists do believe human impacts exists, and is consequential.
4. humans can most definitely impact earth’s temperature, for both good or bad.
peakloser, you have gone off the rails in your fantasy world. i would prefer you simply remain praying at your alter to trump, reagan and nixon, and avoid any interaction with the rest of the world. it was bad enough you helped to destroy the financial world a few years ago, now you are aiming to destroy the physical world! what an old, miserable, lonely hack you must be.
“2slugbaits, I’ve provided plenty of evidence to support my statements.”
No you haven’t. You just babble the same troll BS over and over.
Baffling, you’re in no position to call anyone a “loser,” except your other wacko liberal/socialists alarmists, who hog this blog with so much nonsense. Also, I provided a list of scientists before that dispute your ignorant claims:
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
2/13/2013
“Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.
1. Changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
2. Consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life.
3. They underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life.
4. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.””
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/amp/
2slugbaits, we’re in a CO2 drought.
Chart:
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/image277.gif
PeakTrader Quite possibly the stupidest chart yet. Are you trying to tell us that human civilization as we know it could live in the same world as the dinosaurs? Are you drunk? High on smoke from the California fires? Maybe you think Venus would be a great place as well.
Someone from the Spark of Freedom Foundation writing lies in Forbes is the best your Googling can come up with. Peaky – you are so transparently a liar that it makes my sides hurt laughing at you.
2slugs just made perhaps the sroopidest statement I have yet seen, and he has made some whoppers: “PeakTrader Quite possibly the stupidest chart yet. Are you trying to tell us that human civilization as we know it could live in the same world as the dinosaurs?”
It’s this level of ignorance that amazes. although he is in a contest with the pgl and baffled.
“Baffling, you’re in no position to call anyone a “loser,””
peakloser, i point out your entire response is either a lie or factually incorrect, and this is the best response you can come up with? really? did your mom drop you on your head as a baby? so i have a failed banker who has illustrated it was a good choice he did not choose science in college, because his ability to understand and appreciate facts is a colossal failure. seriously, do you have any positive contribution to society peakloser? i kindly request you return to the country you were born in.
PT,
I just looked at your paper that supposedly finds only 36% of supposedly relevant climatologists agreeing that humans are causing global warming. It turns out that all of the 1007 responders belong to the Alberta Petroleum Energy Government Authority, so basically a bunch of petroleum engineers in a place producing oil in a highly polluting manner from tar sands. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that this is either an objective group or one that knows very much about climatology. Sorry, PT, but this is a fail.
Peak appears to be correct here. In hothouses, the preferred CO2 level is 1300 ppm, about 3x current levels. This suggests plants would actually like more CO2 were it available. Hence the drought. If we were giving plants 30% of the optimal amount of water, we might characterize that as a drought. I think the analogy extends to CO2.
I personally see no reason to believe we could not exist in the same climate as enjoyed by the dinosaurs. Crocodiles and small mammals existed then and exist now. The climate was warmer to be sure, but not too different from tropical or subtropical climates we have today.
Clearly, food must have been more abundant and consistently available then, otherwise animals of dinosaur size would not have survived.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#suppl
https://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Mesozoic.html
Oh Peak. You are truly special. Did you actually read the article. The survey population was members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. These are almost entirely composed of employees of Alberta oil and gas (tar sands) operators. Moreover, the definition of “scientist” was any one with a bachelor’s or higher in a geoscience degree. Yet moreover, the engineers were lumped in with the scientists for most of the analyses, as if there is no difference between an oil and gas engineer and a climate scientist (ha ha, it would be funny if it wasn’t true). Look any reasonably intelligent person can get a B.S. in geography or geoscience and get a job in the oil and gas industry. Without more, those people have nothing to add to any debate on climate science. They have no special training on the matter, and no special access to data or modeling. You might as well survey members of the senate named James Inhofe.
Steven Kopits
You are usually smarter than this sort of silly comment.
Yes, the rain forest supports lots more biomass production than the US Great Plains or the pampas of Australia. But does it grow lots of food humans use? More biomass production does not necessarily mean more edible food for humans.
Well, Barkley, we can exchange sillinesses if you like.
If the planet were warmer — and right now the UAH temp anomaly is running an unimpressive 0.22 deg C — then the productive zones would extend northward and southward, just as they did during the age of the dinosaurs.
And this notion that you can’t grow food in tropical zones, well, imagine the surprise of Brazilian soybean producers, much discussed here, to find out that they can’t actually grow soybeans!
Steven,
Point on soybeans in Brazil well taken. However, your basic argument remains wrong. Greater biomass production does not mean more human food supplies, although indeed this is a very complicated and much studied question. So the IPCC report notes that global warming means that certain crops heavily consumed by humans will disappear from Africa, most notably wheat. Of the big human crops, rice and to a lesser degree corn/maize can handle heat as can soybeans, although corn and soybeans are mostly used for feeding animals. Rice and wheat are the core foodgrains. It is not simply random that the temperate zones are the best for most of these crops.
Your biomass story is off, if not entirely silly. I add the latter because I largely respect you, in contrast to some others who show up here whom I shall not name. You are a serious guy, Steven, even if I called you “silly” in an earlier comment.
barkley, you could add to your comments to steven that while temperate zones may migrate north, you will also be in need of moisture to grow your crops. there is no guarantee that future changes will provide for both warmth and moisture together. we have already seen large swaths of the world change, detrimentally, in this way. the sahara desert was once much more temperate with moisture. it certainly did become warmer, but not more moist, in the present day. so the proposed theory that global warming is beneficial requires that at a minimum two variables change in a beneficial way, not just one. from a probability perspective, it is better to rely on actions determined by one rather than two variables, i would imagine.
Peakloser is a troll. Evidence is a hazard he avoids in his idealogical mind.
Menzie try these graphs 1) Greenland Ice Core http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png 2) Antarctic Ice Core https://i0.wp.com/powerline.wpengine.com/ed-assets/2014/12/vostok_temperature_co2.png
One major problem with modern climate science is that too many participants want to ignore these recorded FACTS. Another major problem with modern climate science is that too many want to credit the SHORT TERM and especially poorly recorded temperature data as superior evidence to the LONG TERM and CYCLICAL climate history. Even another major problem with modern climate science is that too many participants weigh the short term records over the longer term cycles. For instance in 2016, an el Nino year, the news organizations emphasized that short term el Nino peak as record setting, supported by silence from most of the climate science community, while ignoring the same short term la Nina drop since.
Too much focus on the short term records, which represent in some cases periods less than the length of one smoothing period or at best just a few such periods of the cyclical records, has created a false picture of the planet’s climate cycle. ENSO, el Nino & la Nina months long periods, are over emphasized, while ignoring the millions years long evidence.
another ignorant and deceiving article by corev.
A 10,000 year trend line. God – the right wing is pulling this out of their arse!
Baffled, Alley’s fact are deceiving and ignorant?
Pgl, I hope you realize that the planet has had climate and 10,000 years is just a dust spot on the the planet’s history. Did you not realize that 10K years represents just this latest interglacial period, and we humans have survived the entirety of the past glaciation?
again, simply stoopid commentary from corev. it comes across as incoherent babble of cut and pastes.
So incentives do not matter. WTF did they teach you at that University of Colorado school you claimed you attended?
its not what they taught, its what he learned. or in his case, failed to learn. peaktrader is the perfect example of somebody with enough facts in his head, but not enough intelligence to make anything useful of those facts. if i were his professors, i would be so disappointed in the time wasted on him.
“Raising the cost of energy dramatically will not put a dent in slowing global warming.”
You obviously do not understand that PV and wind turbines are already the cheapest generators in many countries , and they reduce CO2 emissions.
Then, you’re for allowing the free or competitive market to decide, including without subsidies.
I’m for competitive markets with the true social cost of production internalized. Right now we are subsidizing the use of fossil fuels.
Of course PeakStupidity has no clue what I just wrote as the concept of externalities was not included in his bot programming!
“Then, you’re for allowing the free or competitive market to decide, including without subsidies.”
why don’t you acknowledge the free subsidies provided to the oil industry. or the lack of environmental cost paid for by the coal industry? then we can start to compare “competitive” markets. peakloser, don’t be a political hack.
And, it should be noted, fossil fuels raised living standards and extended life spans dramatically.
“And, it should be noted, fossil fuels raised living standards and extended life spans dramatically.”
What BS. Yea those coal miners with black lung disease will live to 120 years. I think the Peak Bot needs to be dismantled as its BS is now off the charts.
PeakTrader The point of the study is to show that continued use of fossil fuels will lower living standards and reduce life spans. Try to keep up.
So what? Things outlive their usefulness. Are we to hold on to a fossil fuel based society just because it raised living standards and extended life spans but now pollutes our air and is bringing us ever closer to the tipping point on rapid climate change? No. That would be stupid. Of course Peak disagrees.
“Subsidizing inefficient renewables is expensive and doesn’t work. The IEA estimates that we get 0.4% of our energy from wind and solar PV right now, and even in optimistic scenarios the fraction will only rise to 2.2% by 2040. Over the next 25 years, we’ll spend about $2.5 trillion in subsidies and reduce global warming temperatures by less than 0.02°C.”
https://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
Do you even know who Bjørn Lomborg is? Or his Copenhagen Consensus Center? I doubt it as his team would look at your BS and fall on the floor laughing with pity. They are for more effective means of addressing climate change – which is the opposite of your agenda. But do misrepresent what they have to say. It is what you do.
Like I said – NEVER trust a word from the serial lying troll known as PeakTrader. Check whatever sources he provides assuming this troll bothers to provide a source.
please do not bother peak trader with the facts, as they are inconvenient to his worldview.
Climate issues are kinda interesting because they are one of those places where social science and physical science intersect. Ask a physical scientist at what temperature water should boil and you’ll get a blank stare, and then get told more than you probably want to know at what temperatures water boils, at what atmospheric pressure, salt water vs. fresh water, etc. But to the normative question at what temperature should water boil, no answer. Ask a social scientist a question like ‘should women be allowed to vote’ or ‘are racist immigration policies beneficial’, and you can get an answer. And a pretty good answer, if you are patient and your expert is thorough.
It may be the current global order cannot successfully address the issues posed by climate change, that the stresses of handling the resulting oscillations will break it, billions will die and in the aftermath the survivors will constitute themselves in a society that is currently unimaginable.
I’m not going to bother supporting that assertion. It’s a bit bleak for where we are now, but it’s a possibility, so I’m going to put it out there. But it’s not merely an inconvenient truth, it’s an unpalatable one.
Tried to find the shorter link (time wise) on this, but couldn’t. The link I gave is adjusted to start at the relevant mark and then people can figure out when the discussion of the report ends. It’s 8 minutes time length almost exactly from the 1:10 to the 9:10 mark of the video.
https://youtu.be/OHUpq7FiDJQ?t=70
This anchor/journalist John Yang is one of my favorites. He once did a report on turtle eggs being poached that, no joke, I found kind of emotionally moving:
https://www.pbs.org/video/hatching-a-plan-1516229857/
I have to confess I have eaten dog soup with beer a fair share of times in Korean restaurants located in China, and I may have eaten turtle soup some years back, but if I was aware this was killing off the population, I don’t think I would have a turtle egg with my beer.
My favorite is when Republicans use a single day of cold weather, or a streak of 5 days of cold weather in early January or mid-winter to argue global warming is a “hoax”.
“Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?
“Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes, “was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/
Investor’s Business Daily is your source? Pardon me for falling on the floor laughing!
sammy So let’s check what NOAA actually said rather than some market analyst’s wet dream:
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the first ten months of 2018 was 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average and the fourth highest January–October period in the 139-year record. The warmest January–October global land and ocean surface temperature occurred in 2016 at +0.98°C (+1.76°F). The global land-only and the global ocean-only surface temperatures were also fourth warmest on record. Warmer-than-average temperatures were observed across much of the world’s surface, with record warm temperatures across much of Europe and the Mediterranean Sea and across parts of Russia, the Barents Sea, New Zealand and its surrounding ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean, the contiguous U.S., and Australia.
Based on three simple scenarios, the 2018 global land and ocean temperature will likely end up among the five highest temperatures on record.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201810
You’re as clueless as PeakTrader.
2slugs, and you just compare apples to kumquats, or more correctly a century long average, “… above the 20th century average…” versus the range of peaks and VALLEYS of that century, “… global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years…”. As an experienced statistician you should have know better, but your response exemplifies the blinders used by the true believers while discussing this subject.
Oh wait – CoRev’s horizon just shifted from a 10,000 trend line to the last couple of years. Man – the Onion needs to get in on this act!
CoRev As an experienced statistician you should have know better
As an “experienced statistician” (actually, operations research analyst, not statistician; i.e., GS-1515 rather than GS-1530), I know BS when I see it. Sammy’s source had to torture the data to come up with that bizarre Fox Fact. Yes, if you compare the difference in the anomalies between Feb 2018 and Feb 2016 it is true that it is the largest two year drop. It comes to -0.52 degrees centigrade lower than Feb 2016. But that’s because the difference between Feb 2016 and Feb 2014 was also (by far) the largest difference ever at +0.73 degrees centigrade. The fact is that Feb 2018 was still the third highest temperature anomaly on record for that month. Sammy’s source provided us with a near textbook example of lying with statistics. It’s that kind of intellectual dishonesty that characterizes so much of the garbage coming from climate science “skeptics.”
The rest of us find it amusing how you feel free to lecture some of us on statistics, time series analysis and economics, but yet you brag about not bothering to read even the most basic textbooks on statistics, time series analysis and economics.
2slugs admits: “Yes, if you compare the difference in the anomalies between Feb 2018 and Feb 2016 it is true that it is the largest two year drop.”, but starts with a claim that simple subtraction and comparing like temp drop periods is data torture.
The rest of us are amused at your insistence that simple mathematics, subtraction, requires text books beyond 1st grade, or earlier if your parents were dutiful. It must go back to your comparison of apples and kumquats for Sammy.
CoRev 2slugs admits…
You forgot to include this part of what I said: that’s because the difference between Feb 2016 and Feb 2014 was also (by far) the largest difference ever at +0.73 degrees centigrade. The fact is that Feb 2018 was still the third highest temperature anomaly on record for that month. Of course, you might know first grade arithmetic, but it’s pretty clear that you don’t know freshman statistics.
corev, your response to 2slugs illustrates you have absolutely no quantitative analysis skills. not only did he do the math, he also gave you the data interpretation. and yet you still failed to grasp the point. are you seriously that stoopid, or intentionally act that way on this blog? my guess is you never competed an advanced analysis course in any topic while at college corev. i am afraid to see what your major actually was.
They dropped very slightly, not “sharply.” Still very high.
There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.
Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”
Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.
How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven’t seen any increase in violent weather in decades?
Leave it to Sammy not to provide any link when he claims:
“There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.”
I will provide a link:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00265.1
“This article analyzes open-ended survey responses to understand how members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) perceive conflict within the AMS over global warming. Of all survey respondents, 53% agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects, and 53% saw at least some unproductive aspects. Among members who saw a productive side to the conflict, most agreed as to why it was productive: debate and diverse perspectives enhance science. However, among members who saw an unproductive side, there was considerable disagreement as to why. Members who are convinced of largely human-caused climate change expressed that debate over global warming sends an unclear message to the public. Conversely, members who are unconvinced of human-caused climate change often felt that their peers were closed-minded and suppressing unpopular views. These two groups converged, however, on one point: politics was seen as an overwhelmingly negative influence on the debate. This suggests that scientific organizations faced with similar conflict should understand that there may be a contradiction between legitimizing all members’ views and sending a clear message to the public about the weight of the evidence. The findings also reinforce the conclusion that attempts by scientific societies to directly address differences in political views may be met with strong resistance by many scientists.”
No Sammy – differences have not been ignored. But your study was likely influenced by the right wing biases that you hold so dear.
C’mon Sammy – your blatant dishonesty is all too apparent.
Nop pgl, comparing a survey with a scientific study does not prove your point. Sammy’s point was that the press has not reported all the scientific evidence. What was yours? “…differences have not been ignored. ” Which differences? Almost everyone agrees that humans cause some climate change, no one has yet clearly shown from which impacts and how much we affect climate.
BTW, everyone agrees that climate changes. Only one social sect thinks that it is alarming.
Sammy did not cite a study. He made a claim about a study without telling us who wrote the study or what the title was. Or even a link. Why the failure? Because had he been open and honest, we could have read the study as well as the critiques.
Are you so incredibly stupid not to notice this? I guess so. Or do you want to support Sammy in his blatant dishonesty?
Until you provide us with who wrote this study – the best you can do is to STFU.
“everyone agrees that climate changes. Only one social sect thinks that it is alarming.”
Wow – you just eclipsed PeakStupidity from the dumbest comment in this thread. Well done!
Pgl, you are eclipsing even 2slugs with your intransigent ignorance: “everyone agrees that climate changes. Only one social sect thinks that it is alarming.”. to which part of that statement do you disagree, climate changes or that social sect?
Personally, I thought that the LA Times had staged all these wildfires and deaths. I mean, how do we really know a singed dead body is a singed dead body?? Most of these coroners are part of the grand scientific hoax. That was proven onetime by tears falling from Glen Beck’s face. If Beck had only had 5 tears, then it was real, but if he had over 30 tears then it was a hoax. So that was a hoax. Glen Beck proved scientists were liars with chalk and a stick figure drawing of Brigham Young, I witnessed the whole thing. They could have taken some of the ashes from the Roswell UFO hoax to sprinkle on California liberals, and then mixed it with audio from Orson Welles 1938 “War of the Worlds” broadcast and then “boom” people lost their homes and their lives. It’s an age old dirty liberal trick.
The fires on TV?? That’s just a broken building furnace at CNN headquarters. Also proven when Rush Limbaugh swallowed 50 opiates at once on an internet live stream. BTW, this was after Limbaugh’s 4th marriage, which was after Limbaugh proved his first 3 marriages were liberal hoaxes perpetrated by the “Tel Aviv Cabal” on the pre-Pruitt EPA staff.
James Inhofe solved this scientific deception a long time ago. Okies have referred to him lovingly as “Doctor of Science” Inhofe ever since.
https://youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8?t=8
Crap!!!!! I forgot Alex Jones is on right now, see you later guys.
you mean the same rush limbaugh who bashed clinton for “not inhaling” was busted for being an opiod addict while touring the caribbean sex trade with viagra pills? explains four marriages for the compassionate conservative. who would have thunk a conservative hypocrite would be the role model for so many fools on this site.
I think you (CoRev) and Sammy are the same person, or at least working together. I mean really, he posts utter nonsense and then you always follow up to further cloud the (non) issue. Are you guys paid to be this stupid?
Dave, I don’t think you know what you are talking about.
Off-topic I apologize to Menzie once again for breaking off topic, but sometimes I deem a topic important enough to highlight on his blog, out of fear of forgetting it, or that we don’t wander onto the topic for awhile. Generally even when I’m off-topic it’s stuff Menzie might also like emphasized. Although yes, sometimes I put comments up selfishly that I am aware few would be interested in the topic—anyways…….
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door! ………. Because, uuuuuuhh, we thought it would like, kinda cool if we could have ICE agents, uuuuuuuhh, like, sexually abuse them, and uuuuuuuuhh, like, drug them and stuff. Just for fun. Uuuuuuuuhh, for MAGA, you know”
https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/ice-detention-center-says-its-not-responsible
The text below lifted from a Washington Post story written by Katie Mettler on Lazarus:
“The year was 1883 when Emma Lazarus, a young, high society New York poet and the descendant of Jewish immigrants, was asked for a favor…….. Though raised in privilege, Lazarus had spent her life writing about anti-Semitism and ethnic prejudice, and in the 1880s became a fierce advocate for Jewish refugees fleeing massacre in Russia. The sonnet, called ‘The New Colossus,’ reflected that conviction.”
https://jwa.org/sites/jwa.org/files/mediaobjects/elport1.jpg
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/01/give-us-your-tired-your-poor-the-story-of-poet-and-refugee-advocate-emma-lazarus/?utm_term=.e0381025f4f3
I’m nearly certain that Stevie Mnuchin and Gary Cohn were thinking of Emma Lazarus’ words when they were standing about 6 feet to donald trump’s right when trump told Americans and the world that Nazis were “one of many sides” in Charlottesville.
The U.S. government has published a climate assessment report for the U.S. This article has some insights.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/24/alarmists-will-not-like-this-part-of-the-recently-published-u-s-climate-science-special-report/
Bruce Hall Your self-centered parochial view is showing. Notice that Chapter 6 is all about US surface temperatures, not global surface temperatures and not global surface and sea temperatures. And the “good news” that CoRev’s favorite TV weatherman reports only applies to the eastern half of the US. Strange that Watts didn’t bother to mention figure 1.3 in the report, which shows the same temperature differentials only globally rather than just for the US. Notice that the eastern half of the US sticks out as the odd man out. Maybe he would better understand figure 6.3 if he bothered to look at figure 1.7. The Watts article has zero insights. And Watts’ inability to understand figure 6.5 is gobsmacking. Is he really that dumb? Does he really not understand the difference between a mean difference model and a count model? Apparently not.
@2slugbaits
Sometimes it is important to read what is linked on this blog (for arguments sake) and other times it is not. While your attempts to educate people are genuinely (no sarcasm here) admirable (and certainly beyond my patience level), clicking on those links only encourages the existence and advertising dollars of sources which we can already perceive before clicking are garbage.
This is kind of like your local TV news discussing how shameful tabloid journalism is during Nielsen’s ratings measurements “Can you believe they showed that disgusting thing over on that show ‘Povich STD test, Yes or No’ ?!?!?!?! Now here we see her juxtaposed with the dog, and….. Oh disgusting!!!! And uh, oh there they go again!!!! Look!!! Oh!!! Look!!! Oh, look, disgusting!!!! If you missed that, we’ll be running that again on the 10 o’clock broadcast”. Or local TV news listing the complications (during the “health” segment) of augmented breast surgery. Well, you know they have to have some “stock footage” background video for the “health” segment, damn it all anyway.
Someone can link to Alex Jones, if they like, to present their case, I am not clicking that type link to tell them “how Alex Jones got it wrong”. It’s kind of like jumping into quicksand and saying “See, I told you you can’t swim in this stuff. But you had to have me show you, didn’t you??” At the particular juncture point before you showed them…….uuuuuuuhh……..
2slug, the U.S. and Europe are the only two areas with somewhat reliable records for the past century and one-half.
The phemonenon describe in the U.S. government paper regarding higher low temperatures and fairly steady high temperatures in the U.S. data record is a well-understood one which happens as urban sprawl encompasses formerly rural or semi-rural sites (lows in the 40s; cooler in outlying areas)… Urban Heat Island effect.
There is one arctic weather station from which the entire arctic is extrapolated. That, too, has been encroached on by the town.
Africa has never had a reliable data base and whole sections of that continent are not monitored.
I’ll grant that your knowledge of academic economics probably exceeds mine, but I have been actively studying and in direct communications with some well-known meteorologists and climate scientists since 2007
– Anthony Watts *** – meteorologist and founder of the Surface Stations project, a volunteer initiative to document the condition of U.S. weather stations
– Joe D’Aleo *** – meteorologist and first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel. He was chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.
– Roger Pielke, Sr. *** – research scientist at the NOAA Experimental Meteorology Lab (EML), an associate professor at the University of Virginia (UVa), served the primary academic position of his career as a professor at Colorado State University, deputy of Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) at Colorado State University, and Colorado State Climatologist.
– Judith Curry – American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee.
*** republished and used my analyses of U.S. maximum and minimum temperatures by month, by state from the 1880s through 2008 which showed that the 1930s were the hottest decade on record for the U.S. and that the temperature trend has been essentially flat since then (not exceeded by the first two decades of the 21st century).
and I believe I do grasp many of the nuances in the claims made by IPCC and various “warmists”… many of which are sheer hyperbole.
“and I believe I do grasp many of the nuances in the claims made by IPCC and various “warmists”… many of which are sheer hyperbole.”
most of your commentary on this site indicates you do not understand the nuances, or even the actual facts.
Bruce,
The urban heart effect has been well known for a long time and has been fully accounted for in pretty much all studies for several decades now. Dragging it out at this point shows you are not on top of recent literature, as well as not all that recent literature. It does not explain what the global warming that is being reported.
Barkley,
Understanding UHI and properly accounting for it are two different aspects of temperature analysis.
Loss of rural sites, “temperature homogenization” attempts, and adjusting the historical record which erroneously lower historical temperatures rather than raise them, which would be the correct direction for rural sites, all create an illusion of rapidly rising temperatures. There have been many papers published that criticize the adjustment process.
GIGO
bruce, that was a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid the proper criticism you received regarding uhi, and instead pivot towards rural heat sinks! first you question urban data. and when that does not work, you question rural data! is there any other data that does not fit your world view, that you would like to criticize?
Bruce and Barkley, what Barkley actually said was: “The urban heart effect has been well known for a long time and has been fully accounted for in pretty much all studies for several decades now.” Not only is his time time wrong- “for several decades now.” but so is his subject matter – “has been fully accounted for in pretty much all studies “.
Barkley is obviously speaking without any knowledge and just blind belief. Bruce rightly notes that UHI, and particularly the homogenization approach to resolving in the various official temperature data bases has been an issue only since 2012-13, not decades.
If Barkley believes that the UHI issue was resolved in studies before 2012-13 then he is greatly mistaken. There has been several attempts to solve that very issue just since 2012-13 with the US finally just installing a new set of automated of land-based climate measurement stations in well sited places. This complements the primarily US effort to solve the sea surface data problems with the free floating ARGO buoys. Both efforts are just in their 2nd decade of use. That period is too short to make long range climate estimates
Barkley’s comment represents even another example of belief exceeds knowledge.
CoRev,
Studies of the urban heat effect date back to 1969. Just as our knowledge of much about all this steadily improves, this is also true of how to deal with the urban heat effect. However, adjustments for this have been being made seriously from at least 1990. Sorry, you are off on this as with so much else.
Barkley, you have not added any support to your claim: “…has been fully accounted for in pretty much all studies for several decades now. ” Yes, UHI has been long recognized, and at least attempted to be addressed in the temperature datasets, but those attempts have resulted in several critical papers.
Perhaps you are unaware of the surface stations study which showed how many of the US GHCN stations were poorly sited. As I already the current US solution for new data is: “with the US finally just installing a new set of automated of land-based climate measurement stations in well sited places.” And as Bruce pointed out for older data: “Understanding UHI and properly accounting for it are two different aspects of temperature analysis.
Loss of rural sites, “temperature homogenization” attempts, and adjusting the historical record which erroneously lower historical temperatures rather than raise them, which would be the correct direction for rural sites, all create an illusion of rapidly rising temperatures….”
Your faith is not realistic.
Bruce Hall the 1930s were the hottest decade on record for the U.S.
Once again, you’re showing your parochial view. And not even a very good parochial view because you seem to have forgotten about Alaska.
Urban Heat Island effect.
UHI had a truthiness factor to it when it was first raised as an issue ten years ago with McKitrick & Michaels, but the M&M paper was based on a serious data error. Since then additional research has shown that the effect on surface temperature is trivial and when you include maritime warming it’s irrelevant. For example:
We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2σ error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average. The confidence interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect, and at most a small urban heating effect (less than 0.14°C/100yr, with 95% confidence) on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1°C/100 yr since 1950 in the land average
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
and I believe I do grasp many of the nuances in the claims made by IPCC and various “warmists”… many of which are sheer hyperbole.
Which parts do you consider hyperbole, the temperature projections or the economic costs? Remember, the study is (quite properly) focused on tail risk rather than modal or most likely outcomes. That’s the right way to evaluate risk with a fat-tailed distribution…that’s how insurance companies evaluate risk.
Dude Bruce. Please stop. Meteorologists have no relevant training or access to data or modeling. They are not experts in any sense of the word on climate change. Any climate change article or survey or whatever that references the views of one or more meteorologists (except to debunk said views) is mere hackery. Moreover, we have very reliable global satellite temperature data for decades now. The idea that temperature records are extrapolated for the entire arctic from one weather station is just wrong. And stupid. Yet moreover, the possible increased accuracy of EU and US climate data has nothing to do with the anomaly centered on the Eastern half of the U.S. This anomaly is due to forecast changes in proximal surface ocean temperatures and the jet stream.
Oh gee Bruce – all this says is that volatility has decreased. The average is creeping up however. So when global warming does horrific damage to the world economy at least we should take great cheer that we will need that winter coat!
pgl see my response to 2slugbaits. Higher low temperatures are an artifact of surface station siting and UHI.
2slugs, again shows his intolerance and bias by blaming Watts, but the author was Bob Tisdale not Watts. You really should have at least read the article.
Pgl, oh yee of the AGW catastrophe social sect,claims: “So when global warming does horrific damage to the world economy at least we should take great cheer that we will ??? need that winter coat!” ???forget a word? “…when global warming does horrific damage…” don’cha just luv the alarmism, when he doesn’t realize that rising averages are not alarming without rising high temps?
Look again at that 10,000 year chart from the noted warmist climatologist, Richard Alley, and tell us where we are in the CURRENT glacial cycle.
“but the author was Bob Tisdale not Watts. You really should have at least read the article.”
Gee a right wing troll FINALLY tells us who wrote this dishonest drivel he hyped as fact. Consult with PeakDishonesty and your boy Sammy who will tell you such transparency is not how it is done!
It’s important to read the “Fourth National Climate Assessment” with the observation are they explicitly and/or implicitly limiting the discussion to the period of recorded temperatures, from ~1850/60 to present? The importance of this observation is do they include the period of the Little Ice Age and explain the causes of its the start and end?
It doesn’t take much reading to see that this and too many other studies are limited to this very, very short period of dubious record keeping. By doing so too many studies miss the obviousness of other causes and effects. Are there regular and irregular cycles to be evaluated? What causes them? Are those cycles evident out side of man’s industrial period? If so, what supports man’s industrial period gaseous outputs as the leading cause of climate change? BTW, the answer is an obvious YES.
If the concept’s fundamentals can still be questioned, why can’t the concept also be questioned?
Before the inevitable claims of denial of Climate Change or human cause for it, NO! This does not deny that human caused climate change is occurring, but does question the current scientific understanding of it and the alarmist claims associated with the claimed causes and effects.
“the observation are they explicitly and/or implicitly limiting the discussion to the period of recorded temperatures, from ~1850/60 to present? The importance of this observation is do they include the period of the Little Ice Age and explain the causes of its the start and end?”
Yes let’s go back 10,000 years when humans did not exist. A 10,000 trend line. The dumbest thing EVER written in the history of internet trolls! Congratulations!
WOW! And again there goes pgl showing his absolute ignorance of human and earthly history: “Yes let’s go back 10,000 years when humans did not exist. A 10,000 trend line….” Try this: http://humanhistorytimeline.com/
There even is a disputed study concluding humans existed in N. America as long as 130,000 YO, which BTW is 13 times the time line in which you show your ignorance
CoRev Let’s look at your own track record. For years you have been promising that global cooling was just around the corner. You were certain there was a “hiatus”. That turned out to be false. Then you denied there was global warming because of “urban heat islands” corrupting the data. Then you backtracked and conceded that there was warming, but it wasn’t manmade. Then you fell back on theories of solar cycles, except that the earth kept getting warmer even though the solar minimum predicted that it should be getting colder. You’ve trotted out one excuse after another. You remind me of Ptolemy’s cycles and epi-cycles and epi-epi-cycles. The fundamentals go to the underlying physics, and we know that increasing CO2 concentrations will increase the earth’s temperature. That’s been known and understood for at least a hundred years. Pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth will cook. Pump enough C02 into the atmosphere and you risk a runaway situation in which it will not be possible to cool the earth. There’s no scientific doubt about where we’re headed, only when we arrive. My preference would be to start reducing GHG emissions now when it will be cheaper and easier rather than later when it will be much more expensive and orders of magnitude more difficult. I suspect that you’re willing to kick the can down the road because you don’t really care what happens to future generations. That’s a fairly common view within a certain pro-Trump demographic.
As to you comments about the Little Ice Age, what does any of that have to do with post-industrial warming? And I really enjoyed this:
It doesn’t take much reading to see that this and too many other studies are limited to this very, very short period of dubious record keeping.
So apparently you are very skeptical of contemporary temperature measurements using advanced scientific equipment, but you seem quite comfortable with Little Ice Age data based on tree rings, pine cones and poorly done principal components analysis!!!
I do have one gripe with the government’s study. The study likes to frame things in terms of foregone GDP. I don’t think that’s the right way to view the problem. GDP means “GROSS domestic product.” What we should really be concerned with is “NET domestic product” as correctly measured. Replacing infrastructure due to climate change might increase GDP without necessarily increasing NDP. That’s because we will have to invest more labor and capital into just replacing what is lost each year just to maintain NDP. I’ve always thought this was the right way to view how we measure welfare in the wake of climate damage and natural resource exhaustion:
http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/working_papers/papers/qed_wp_771.pdf
It’s an early example of how to apply optimal control theory & Hamiltonians to economic problems. When thinking about climate change it’s important to think dynamically.
2slugs, more false memories of my position. Most of those explanations were give to explain specific conditions. Do you actually deny the effects of UHI? I have never had to fall back on any different theories, because of the false belief you demonstrate: ” Pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth will cook. Pump enough C02 into the atmosphere and you risk a runaway situation in which it will not be possible to cool the earth. There’s no scientific doubt about where we’re headed, only when we arrive. ”
Never in the 4B+ year history of the Earth has there ever been a “runaway ” situation. Nor has the planet cooked even with Green House Gases at many times what hey can ever be in today’s world. Co2, just one of the Green House Gases, has been as high as 7,000 PPM, and yet no runaway and no cooked earth.
You exemplify the stupefying ignorance and blind belief of so many catastrophic AGW proponents.
You really should read some of the good texts or even scientific studies. This is not one of them. Here’s just one of Dr Spencer’s: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z
However, knowing you, it will not be read and understanding attempted, instead your normal mode is to look up some complaint articles, and even the you won’t understand the complaint.
Oh Geez. Really CoRev? The human population at 7,000 ppm CO2 will be vastly lower than the population today, if not zero. That’s close enough to “cooked” for me to want to avoid.
“2slugs, more false memories of my position.”
Actually no. But you routinely misrepresent what others are saying. A sure sign of a troll.
2slugbaits,
“Pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth will cook. Pump enough C02 into the atmosphere and you risk a runaway situation in which it will not be possible to cool the earth. ”
Did you know that the current Earth atmosphere is at historic lows in terms of CO2 concentration?
We are at approx. 450 parts per million when the average over the past 300 million years seems about 800 ppm.
It has been as high as 7000 ppm. https://www.ctrmcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AJB-Global-Temp-Atmospheric-CO2-over-Geologic-Time_640x513.gif
(Note too the nonexistent correlation between CO2 and temperature)
Sammy Yes, Sammy, we all know that. Did you know that humans weren’t around 300 million years ago? The issue isn’t whether or not the dinosaurs can live on a hot planet, it’s whether humans can. Did you know that Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is much closer to the sun? Do you know why? Hint: Venus is thick with CO2 and Mercury isn’t.
sammy, one should note those high levels of co2 did not correlate with flourishing, advanced, intelligent life forms. mostly single celled organisms.
the current Earth atmosphere is at historic lows in terms of CO2 concentration?
Wrong. The lowest recorded concentration of CO2 is 172ppm.
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
It is not just PeakStupidity and Sammy dismissing this report:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gop-sens-shrug-at-trump-admins-alarming-black-friday-climate-change-report
“Though Sens. Joni Ernst (R-IA), Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Mike Lee (R-UT) all acknowledged the existence of a changing climate to some degree — though Ernst hedged that “the climate is always changing” — the three Republicans expressed doubt about and resistance to potential federal efforts to combat what climate scientists have characterized as a fast-moving threat to humanity.”
Deny, deny, deny!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pmBC_CrQS4
Pgl and the other wacko leftists have been wrong about almost everything, including fossil fuels extending life expectancy and raising living standards substantially:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/03/15/the-true-link-between-carbon-based-fuels-and-quality-of-life/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/02/09/fossil-fuels-mean-more-people-living-better-living-longer/amp/
PeakTrader Is it possible for you to do any actual research beyond frantically googling for Forbes articles? Aren’t you embarrassed? Did you completely miss the point of the government’s report? Hint: it was forward looking, not backward looking.
Peaky does this routinely. Every time he goes to his Google research, check it out as it is guaranteed to give you a great laugh. He is so incredibly transparent in his dishonesty that my sides hurt from laughing so hard.
“Hint: it was forward looking, not backward looking.”
give peakloser a break. had been able to complete a phd, he would have developed some quantitive thinking skills. but he couldn’t, that is why he became a failed banker.
Jude Clemente? This right wing hack not only writes for Real Clear Politics. He writes for Real Clear Energy. That is sort of like working for both Faux New and Faux Business at the same time. Please stop was my sides hurt with laughing at you.
James Balog has a film on it, I think it’s called “Chasing Ice”. Not sure if it’s on Netflix, but it’s worth looking around for. People who are extremely dumb (CoRev, Ed Hanson, PeakIgnorance, and our amazing cast) are much more apt to believe something when put in very simple terms. Maybe watching melting ice caps and melting icebergs that have been there THOUSANDS of years could help them “get it”. We can always hold out hope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7d_A60Hs7c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU
https://youtu.be/yTDdY1UG7ug?t=235
Then again, maybe Steven Spielberg of “the Evil Tel Aviv Cabal” got together with George Soros to create all of the above “staged” scenes. In the mind of your average Reaganite nutjob, the imagination has no bounds.
Oh dear if I can advance an economic argument.
coal and its close relatives generates negative externailties hence it is not priced correctly.
If priced correctly with a carbon tax or ETS then its prices would recover ALL its costs.
This helps in reducing emissions which is vert important
@ Not Trampis
Trump says that Aussies have very very poor fire management, and you need to clear away the leaves. Clear away the leaves!!!!! OK?? Really. Believe me!!! Believe me!!!! Believe me, you need to clear away the leaves. Now if you need any more help on this, your Prime Minister Scott Morrison can call donald trump, trump is an expert on clearing away leaves and overgrown brush . It’s so lucky for Australia our resident in the White House is a specialist in clearing away excess leaves and overgrown brush and shrubs. donald trump has authoritative knowledge on fire management Just buzz him ok?? trump even painted himself orange so that if there is a fire, people know “Call the orange guy”. trump is a fire expert. Believe me!!!! Believe me!!!! BTW, your Queensland fires have NOTHING to do with global warming (a rumor spread by the “Tel Aviv Cabal” and the Antifa rebel command run by Soros). It is only because Aussies are so amazingly inept at fire management. And this has been scientifically reaffirmed by our local soybean technocrat “CoRev” who has great great respect among the academic and scientific community in the USA. Nothing to do with global warming at all, ok?? That’s an old Phd scientist joke people are taking at face value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eNno7fQvao
P.S. donald trump says Aussies have VERY DUMB firemen and very dumb forestry management. You need to change that soon. OK?? Believe me!!!! Believe me!!!!!
Remember that CoRev is the guy who claimed that CO2 couldn’t possibly cause long term global warming because the photon interaction lasts only a nanosecond.
Joseph, you failed to understand the science than and continue to do so. Can you answer the question of the life cycle length of an IR photon in the atmosphere? Can you predict how many molecular interactions occur in that life cycle?
Moreover, can you even define the meaning of your own statement: “CO2 couldn’t possibly cause long term global warming“. Can you answer what does store warming for the long term (what ever you mean by that)?
“Can you answer the question of the life cycle length of an IR photon in the atmosphere? Can you predict how many molecular interactions occur in that life cycle?”
i can guarantee you corev, that you cannot answer that question.
Baffled, I see you failed to answer the question and just tried to cover your ignorance with ridicule.
actually we had this conversation in the past, when you showed your ignorance. i was giving you an opportunity to take the time and learn something, and respond with the proper answer. but as i said, i can guarantee you that you still have not learned and cannot produce a proper answer. i am ridiculing you because you huff and puff about your “knowledge”, but when put on the spot you cannot produce. maybe you are not an old dog, and will surprise me with your new found knowledge, but i seriously doubt it.
i did not fail to answer your question. i will give you a hint. your question is what is considered “ill posed”, in that it is arguing from a position of physically false assumptions to begin with.
Baffled, please dazzle us by explaining what are the physically false assumptions. Can you tell us the “CAPTURE” residence time of an IR photon within a GHG molecule?
The common use of IR Photon being captured was the subject of that prior discussion. My conclusion was if radiative heat transfer was so short, then couldn’t conduction and convection also play a bigger part than currently proposed.
“Can you answer the question of the life cycle length of an IR photon in the atmosphere? Can you predict how many molecular interactions occur in that life cycle?”
can you distinguish a single photon through its time history in the atmosphere corev?
Baffled, I thought you were going to dazzle and not fizzle trying to be cute. I’m sure you could calculate what you want if you could break through your bias. Remember what trapped actually means and the likelihood of a photon encountering a GHG molecule.
not being cute corev. you cannot follow the trajectory of a single photon as it travels through the atmosphere, interacting with molecules. it has nothing to do with “bias”. it has everything to do with physics and how the physical world operates. and this is the point of this discussion with you corev. you choose to deny the physics, or science, of the problems we face. you think you can simply wish them away when they create a conflict for you. but science does not work that way. you need to address those problems head on. my guess is you still do not understand why your question is ill posed, but will try to come up with another “cute” dance around the issue, rather than acknowledge your deficiency in the science. once you acknowledge your deficit, you are in a position to learn from it. my guess is that step will never occur corev.
On the contrary, Baffled, cute is exactly what you are being. Remember the key is GHG molecule versus an atmospheric non-GHG molecule, and UP WELLING IR. Do you know the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere? Your response above appears to say no: “you cannot follow the trajectory of a single photon as it travels through the atmosphere, interacting with molecules. ” There are a couple of other well known factors which must be considered, height of the atmosphere, % of atmospheric solids (mostly ice and water), time of day/surface temperature, etc.
Since we are talking about a chaotic system, the probabilistic answer is how many collisions of any given photon with a GHG molecule might occur, and how many collisions MIGHT occur with other non-GHG molecules within the atmosphere at any give time.
You seem to be thinking of the atmosphere as a solid or near solid versus what it actually is.
corev, you posed the question to begin with
“Can you answer the question of the life cycle length of an IR photon in the atmosphere? Can you predict how many molecular interactions occur in that life cycle?”
this requires that you know the trajectory of the photon throughout its lifetime. i asked you if that can be known. you failed to answer the question, because you do not know the answer. and that was anticipated. the remainder of your responses has been to move the conservation elsewhere. but this was the ill posed question that you made.
“Since we are talking about a chaotic system”. no, we are not talking about a chaotic system corev. we are talking about a random system, or at best a probabilistic system. it is not deterministic, since the molecular interactions are quantum in nature, so it is not a chaotic system. there is a big difference between chaotic and random systems.
“You seem to be thinking of the atmosphere as a solid or near solid versus what it actually is.” seriously, why add such a garbage line. you already fail to understand what you are talking about. why simply enhance your ignorance, corev? your comment is meaningless, meant to insult me, but lacks any merit.
Baffled, you’re still doing the cutesy dance. Your failure to understand the merits of this: You seem to be thinking of the atmosphere as a solid or near solid versus what it actually is.” seriously, why add such a garbage line. you already fail to understand what you are talking about.”
You seem to forget the issue was HOW LONG IS IR trapped in the atmosphere? When ~98% of the atmosphere is made up of non-GHGs the probability of a photon even being absorbed is pretty low. Therefore the calculations is pretty simple, unless of course you disbelieve the physics of absorption (trapped).
Otherwise your comment is meaningless, meant to insult but lacks any merit.
first things first idiot. a photon is an indistinguishable particle, so you cannot follow its trajectory through the atmosphere. it is also a boson, so two photons can occupy the same space with the same quantum numbers at the same time. you cannot tell which photon is which. now once a photon is absorbed into a molecule, it no longer exists. it no longer has a trajectory. now that energy can be emitted randomly from the molecule, but it is not the same photon. this is actually some basic physics, corev, and you do not understand it. further, you have no interest in understanding it. i taught you this in the past, but you failed to learn like a below average student. but for your benefit, we will allow you to continue the conversation with your stoopid science, if we can further our conversation.
“You seem to forget the issue was HOW LONG IS IR trapped in the atmosphere? When ~98% of the atmosphere is made up of non-GHGs the probability of a photon even being absorbed is pretty low. ”
actually, i would like to know what your point is? first, since you are worrying about an emission process, it has a random nature to it (not a chaotic nature like you have misunderstood in the past). but please, explain to me why this HOW LONG issue seems to be so important and the crux of your argument? please explain. it is almost like you have never even read about, or more accurately understood, the greenhouse gas mechanism. but please enlighten me on the importance of how long. i know it is a very short period of time. so what? greenhouse gases make up a small percentage of the atmosphere, but it is also estimated that our average surface temp would be about 0F rather than nearly 60F. so please explain why HOW LONG is so important to prove me wrong and you right about global warming. dunce.
Baffled, I have tried to explain why being TRAPPED is a misnomer for how the green house effect operates. You started by disagreeing or being confused why and what it meant. Now you’re doubling down on your own confusion.
With all this needless and confusing discussion you have failed to grasp the fundamental issue. You even cited an important concept: ” now once a photon is absorbed into a molecule, it no longer exists. it no longer has a trajectory. now that energy can be emitted randomly from the molecule, but it is not the same photon.” Exactly correct and for that nano-microsecond period energy is transferred (stored).
this is actually a part of the basic physics,Baffled, ,but you forgot the importance of the physics of your following statement: “now that SAME energy can be emitted randomly from the molecule, but it is not the same photon.” and leaves the molecule at its previous energy level. TRAPPING OVER! You do not understand it. Further, you have no interest in understanding it.
I used the single photon example because its much easier to envision collision likelihood, unless the basic knowledge is lacking as you have repeatedly shown. Data necessary to calculate collision probabilities are readily available, unless blind belief over takes logic. Again, as you have shown.
Since we’ve discussed this single and simple concept of green house effect, can you now consider periods when IR photons actually could cool the planet’s surface?
corev, i am going to allow you to continue digging your hole. once again, please explain to me why your question of HOW LONG is relevant to our discussion. why is the excitation duration of a ghg important to your argument?
but before you respond, let me point out the direction of your argument and its illogical conclusion. you want to argue that the duration is very short, and the chance of hitting a ghg is very small, so there is no chance that the greenhouse gases are causing all this global warming. now let me present to you three cases: mercury, venus and earth. through the physical observations of these three planets, we have direct evidence that the greenhouse gas effect has an impact on the temperatures found on a planet. in fact, we understand that the current levels of greenhouse gases on earth are an important contributor to the current, pleasant temperatures found worldwide. if we removed the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, we would drop about 60F worldwide in temperature. so we do know, without doubt, that the greenhouse gas effect exists and is influencing our planet today. even an idiot like yourself should not dispute this item.
but corev, where you become the bigger idiot, and where your hole continues to dig deeper, is now you are creating a line of argument that says greenhouse gases are not creating any impact on current global warming effects because the photon cannot stay in the ghg for very long, especially the time periods we are measuring the temperature increase. so the greenhouse gases cannot cause global warming. and yet we know, and you probably even acknowledge, that the greenhouse gases help to keep earth temperate to begin with. so corev, you are left in the conundrum of having good greenhouse gases, that keep earth habitable, while having man made greenhouse gases that follow a different type of physics and do not contribute to any warming of earth. apparently that short duration of ghg excitation is irrelevant to the modern concern of global warming, but it is permitted to keep us out of “snowball earth” conditions. corev, you are taking positions that are contradictory in nature, and you seem to ignore those consequences.
further, as somebody with expertise in the stem fields, i must say having any kind of technical discussion with idiots such as yourself are very frustrating. you lack even the basics a freshman would have from taking calc 1 or university physics, and yet you bloviate like you have some greater insight than experts who have spent years studying these topics. it is your ignorance that allows you to continue with these contradictory positions, and unfortunately, i have little doubt in your ability to clear up that ignorance.
so returning to your very important question, please answer why HOW LONG is so critical of an issue. maybe i can also ask you one further question, has the kinetic energy of the ghg molecule (and any future molecules the ghg molecule collides with) changed in this process?
Baffled, your failure to understand the basics of the GHG and your blindered misinterpretations that is NOT being said: “so there is no chance that the greenhouse gases are causing all this global warming…. so the greenhouse gases cannot cause global warming. …” You want to make a case that I deny the physics of capture, but I have NEVER said nor implied that.
I did make the point that that period of capture is very, very short. to which you started this long and confused discussion. Do you beleive the physics of the capture and the length of its duration? Yes or no?
As to your confusion and lack of knowledge of the basic physics. You asked: ” maybe i can also ask you one further question, has the kinetic energy of the ghg molecule (and any future molecules the ghg molecule collides with) changed in this process?” Yes, the kinetic energy has changed for the duration of the capture, which as I have pointed out is a VERY,VERY short time. AND THE VERY POINT WHICH WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, THE DURATION OF THAT CHANGE! Once the energy is emitted from the GHG molecule the molecule is left at its original state. The likelihood of the newly emitted photon being again captured is the same as the original photon, relatively low.
Oxygen and Nitrogen the two major components of the atmosphere are essentially IR transparent. So let me ask you as question. If the overall atmosphere is warmed, gains kinetic energy, by the GHE, and if the bulk of the atmosphere is transparent to IR, how did the Oxygen and Nitrogen gain this energy? Hint: I’ve mentioned them several times in these discussions.
So my final question, how do you think CO2 is the driver (control knob) of climate (temperature) change? If you believe that it is, then explain how it overwhelms the other transfer factors. We can both agree that at some altitude radiation does overwhelm them because there is GHG remaining to slow their escape.
But before you respond, let me point out the direction of your argument and its illogical conclusion, and where you become the bigger idiot, and where your hole continues to dig deeper due to your blind belief in the climate knob theory, causing, I must say having any kind of technical discussion with idiots such as yourself is very frustrating. You will continue to make meaningless points like trajectory or statements based upon your own ignorance like: “(question is) ill posed”, in that it is arguing from a position of physically false assumptions to begin with.”
They are neither physically false nor assumptions, but attempts to pose questions regarding the blind belief of you and your fellow travelers based upon the dearth of your own knowledge. When you can not answer these relatively simple questions, how can anyone trust your judgement?
i know i am talking to a dead log here, but i will try to ask corev once again. why is the question HOW LONG so important to your discussion? does it matter that a ghg is excited for a picosecond or 10 minutes, if it still releases the energy back to earth? so rather than continue to dance around these other items, corev, can you simply answer the question? or shall you continue to believe that we have greenhouse gases that somehow behave differently for man made warming compared to the greenhouse gas effect that keeps us from “snowball earth”. i have asked you about the importance of this HOW LONG issue multiple times, and you have yet to provide an answer.
Baffled, you’ve finally gotten to a reasonable question: “does it matter that a ghg is excited for a picosecond or 10 minutes, if it still releases the energy back to earth? ” NOPE! It never was the issue. The issue was the concept of being “TRAPPED” was misunderstood by the most of the commentariate. For even trapped for such a short period the surface temperature will have changed for those few photons returned to it.
Now, can you answer my question: Is that photon warming or cooling (is energy added or or reduced) by returning to the planet’s surface? Since the temperature determines the wavelength distribution of the electromagnetic radiation, can you predict the likelihood of the surface temp change since it first lost that photon? So rather than continue to dance around these other items, Baffled, can you simply answer that question?
You have made some silly assumptions of my beliefs. For example: “shall you continue to believe that we have greenhouse gases that somehow behave differently for man made warming compared to the greenhouse gas effect that keeps us from “snowball earth”, and “so there is no chance that the greenhouse gases are causing all this global warming. now let me present to you three cases: mercury, venus and earth. through the physical observations of these three planets, we have direct evidence that the greenhouse gas effect has an impact on the temperatures found on a planet. ” Who has questioned the GHE? I admit to questioning the understanding of the impact of CO2 “trapping” especially for the ignoranti.
You first started by questioning the time frame and now have resorted to proving the GHE. I have been questioning the misconceptions of how it works and especially the concept of trapping Photons at IR frequencies as the driver/control knob of temperature change. You have ignored the impact of the two other methods of energy/heat transfer while I have mentioned their important in each of these long discussions. Why is that? Because you blindly believe the concept that CO2 is driver/control knob of temperature change, and the measurement of sensible heat.
The measurement of sensible heat is the issue as CO2 is driver/control knob of that change, can not be well explained the CO2 control knob theory, but is better explained by other two energy transfer methods. Which BTW you have failed to list.
So, can you explain how CO2, which you clearly believe is the control knob of sensible temperature change, is selectively effective at night, over urban areas, and in Winter where this Report clearly states is where sensible sensible temperature change occurs?
I have posed these many questions as measures of the depth and value of understanding by those willing to answer them. By not answering them, you have failed each test.
“Baffled, you’ve finally gotten to a reasonable question: “does it matter that a ghg is excited for a picosecond or 10 minutes, if it still releases the energy back to earth? ”
i was asking you this very question from the very beginning. yet you failed to answer the question, so i finally had to answer it for you. it is tiring to do all your work for you.
“Now, can you answer my question: Is that photon warming or cooling (is energy added or or reduced) by returning to the planet’s surface? ”
it is a net increase in temperature, compared to the time prior to the photon reaching earth. hence the greenhouse effect.
“You have ignored the impact of the two other methods of energy/heat transfer while I have mentioned their important in each of these long discussions. Why is that? Because you blindly believe the concept that CO2 is driver/control knob of temperature change, and the measurement of sensible heat.”
you fail to understand the difference between mechanisms which increase the energy content, and mechanisms which simply redistribute the energy content. when i place an ice cube in a cup of coffee, i change the energy content of the coffee as a whole, immediately. how the energy, or temperate, redistributes in the coffee make little difference to the total energy content. similarly, it is the fact that the greenhouse effect puts energy into the system (earth) that is most important, not how that energy is locally distributed to the system. you do not want to acknowledge this fact corev.
Baffled, I see you are changing the issue again by not quoting my whole answer: “NOPE! It never was the issue. The issue was the concept of being “TRAPPED” was misunderstood by the most of the commentariate. For even trapped for such a short period the surface temperature will have changed for those few photons returned to it.” Now you want to ignore the fact the GHG once releasing the photon has returned to its original state. Hence no TRAPPING, but slowing of the release of surface heat. NO ONE HAS ARGUED AGAINST THAT SLOWING.
Blind belief is evident in your response: “it is a net increase in temperature, compared to the time prior to the photon reaching earth. hence the greenhouse effect.” The subject has been the impact of a photon being “TRAPPED” and how it affects TEMPERATURE CHANGE. Temperature change is a rate/directional question, and there are three phases, gain, equilibrium, and loss. At phase 1 a returned photon will actually slow the rate, as it left at a lower temperature that when it returned. Thus the GHE of slowed warming during the day and slowed cooling at night. Slowing of the rate of change is the GHE which shows up as the +/- change in SENSIBLE HEAT. Clearly, your statement is incorrect as this rate of change is different at every location on the planet IF IT COULD BE MEASURED AT THE TIME FRAME WE ARE DISCUSSING.
Your discussion of convection and conduction and your example is just another example of your blind belief and confusion: “you fail to understand the difference between mechanisms which increase the energy content, and mechanisms which simply redistribute the energy content. when i place an ice cube blah, blah…” Redistribution of the energy content is the point of being TRAPPED or not! Faster/slower redistribution is what is being measured in temperature change. Again blind belief over scientific logic.
You also demonstrate this blind belief: ” it is the fact that the greenhouse effect puts energy into the system (earth) that is most important, not how that energy is locally distributed to the system….” What you failed to acknowledge is that radiant heat exchange is done at the SPEED OF LIGHT. Hence the gain and loss of this energy is nearly instantaneous, not TRAPPED. Locally distributed energy by conduction and convection are the mechanisms that slows the process to create sensible heat.
The concept of being trapped in the many, many comments about about temperature change is misunderstood by the commentariat. It is not misunderstood by the scientists, but being trapped does NOT SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF CO2 BEING THE CONTROL KNOB. You have ignored answering every question re: this control knob issue. That’s what you don’t want to admit.
corev, if you have something coherent to say, please do so. your rambling responses are simply a joke. i cannot even figure out what your point is. at the end of the day, you either believe the earth is heating up, and this is due to the greenhouse gas effect, or you do not believe the earth is heating up, and the greenhouse gas effect does not exist. take your pick. but for the love of god, please quit responding with all this utter nonsense, and make a coherent and intelligent argument. i call you an idiot for a reason.
Baffled, what a sad commentary and example of an oversimplified comment. You either believe blah, blah green house effect more blah blah.
If you believe the physics of radiant transfer of energy in the atmosphere, then you can or would have answered the question of how CO2, especially ACO2, is the control knob of CLIMATE CHANGE? But for these many comments you have yet to answer that question and especially explain how the short period of TRAPPING a photon drives the CLIMATE. Please note I did not say temperature change.
The fact you have failed to answer these questions and resorted to name calling shows how little knowledge you have on the climate subject.
“especially explain how the short period of TRAPPING a photon drives the CLIMATE. ”
once again, idiot, i ask you why HOW LONG is such an important item for your position. this has already been discussed.
“The fact you have failed to answer these questions and resorted to name calling shows how little knowledge you have on the climate subject.”
no. it indicates i am foolish enough to try to have a conversation with an idiot who does not understand math or science, and is actually too stoopid to realize that limitation. corev, you are foolish enough to believe that rising sea levels and increasing ocean heat content are not the result of a net increase in energy remaining in the earth’s system. i am not sure how to respond to a person who simply does not believe in gravity. i have no weapon against such ignorance.
corev is also convinced he can follow that photon as it works its way back up and out of the atmosphere.
Some more related to Balog and and the ice caps melting, slowly but surely. This foretells the deaths of entire species, some of which/whom could hold answers to some of man’s greatest problems. Solutions to cancer, communicable diseases etc…… lost forever. Will be interesting to hear the Newt Gingriches of the world rationalize how multiple species dying off in a very short window of time “just means nothing”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW9x3eZinbs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07PYCbcMgio
https://youtu.be/gLN29VlucZg?t=70
It’s really “nothing” folks. Just your own children’s and grandchildren’s future well-being, all so your cousin can get black lung in a coal mine. It’s all just a funny joke. Don’t mind it. All the THOUSANDS of scientists and science teachers are playing a big joke on you, like pointing at a booger on your shirt that isn’t really there. Just keep driving down this same MAGA thoroughfare here because Orange Excrement in the White House leaves you feeling less threatened by “the evil darkies” coming soon to a small town near you.
When reading this story, a question immediately popped into my head.
https://www.apnews.com/38334c4d061e493fb108bd975b5a1a5d
Don’t we have other candidates for war combat, willing to sacrifice themselves and much less apt to be missed by humanity??
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a61643/donald-trump-kids-family/
The bonus here is they are all the “correct color coding”, and no possible potential for the “evil trans” soldier here. Oh wait….. unless……??
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/busted-trump-campaign-chair-caught-in-a-motel-room-with-an-underage-boy/
wow, moses, you did up fascinating dirt. so a trump campaign chair and oklahoma state senator who runs on conservative family values was busted smoking marijuana in a super 8 motel room with a 17 year old male prostitute while married with children! how does this not get more news press? i can understand the mainstream media failing, but where was faux news in all of this?
@ baffling
I appreciate what I assume was a mild complement there. Sir, may I respectfully respond with some sarcasm, not directed at you, but others??
You “forget” the “liberal media bias”. That is why we never heard this story on the national level. You can’t have the one party largely composed of absolute morons living in rural areas to become aware that the party that lectures about “family values” cares much less about morals than the party they spend large amounts of time lecturing. Nancy Reagan was one of the biggest sluts to ever walk around Hollywood. And who got a quick divorce to marry her?? Saint Ronny Reagan. This is similar to Kathy Lee Gifford spouting Jesus every 5 seconds while she opened her thighs wide to get Frankie away from his second wife, then was “shocked” to find out Franky was cheating on her with a stewardess skank. The female mind is a fascinating thing, when they get a man to cheat on his wife they think “ I, I. I, I, I, I, me, me, me ,me, I…. am the ‘special’ one” but it never occurs to them that when the guy was tom-catting around on his prior wife with them, he might turn right around, and do the same to her. It’s apparently some form of rocket science to them, which is why I am sure Kathy Lee was shocked Franky was screwing around with a stewardess skank on her.
If I sat and put links for Republican Congressman spouting Jesus and “family values” who did incredibly immoral things (including the pedophile Dennis Hastert—who at one time, had Nancy Pelosi’s job—Speaker of the House of Representatives), that is ALL I would do on this site, stretching out for the next 48+ hours.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/us/dennis-hastert-restrictions-children/index.html
My advice to you to find these things–read tons of sh*t, but focus on NYT, Mother Jones, and Rachel Maddow. Because those are the 3 most apt to snag the stuff the corporate media has no interest in discussing.
There are many variables that can or hypothesized change global climate. The biggest is the output of the sun, but there are also ocean currents, cloud cover, solar rays, changes in orbit and axis of the earth, volcanic activity to name just some.
Atmospheric CO2 is now approx. 400 parts per million. You read that correctly “400 parts per million” or about .04% of the atmosphere http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5039/5895165280_00bc1f2733_z.jpg Manmade CO2 is maybe 50 parts per million. So we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere from .035% to .04%. Instead of 350 black balls in a sea of a million black balls we have 400 black balls. This really overrides all the other influences?
Remember Earth’s climate varied wildly, from ice ages when the world was predominantly covered in ice sheets a mile thick, to warm periods where dinosaurs lived in Antarctica, all before man existed. Now all of a sudden he is in charge?
i must say sammy, your response is scientifically ignorant. perhaps you should inhale a little ricin? just a couple crystals. we are talking milligrams here, whereas your fat a$$ probably weighs in at over 100 kilograms. that is a couple of salt crystals in your human sea of lard-we are talking parts per million here. could this be dangerous either?
“The biggest is the output of the sun, but there are also ocean currents, cloud cover, solar rays, changes in orbit and axis of the earth, volcanic activity to name just some.” these have been examined scientifically, in case you have not been following the literature. idiot.
“Remember Earth’s climate varied wildly, from ice ages when the world was predominantly covered in ice sheets a mile thick, to warm periods where dinosaurs lived in Antarctica, all before man existed. Now all of a sudden he is in charge?”
you do know that the oxygen you breath is a direct result of single celled organisms transforming the high co2 environment into a more oxygen rich environment, which allowed advanced animals to succeed-humans, and monkeys such as yourself. a bunch of single celled organisms dramatically changed the earth’s atmosphere, and you think that the most advanced life form ever seen on earth (unless you are also a ET conspiracy theorist as well) cannot have an impact? seriously, think about your position on all this-it is simply stoopid.
Yes, Sammy, now we are in charge. As has been noted by several, most of the non-human forcing trends should have earth’s average temperature declining, but instead it is rising. All those other factors you listed simply are not operating strongly enough to overcome the accumulation of anthropogenic GHGs, not just CO2, but possibly more importantly in the near future methane as well.
I guess in your world it is the 21% that is oxygen that terrifies you. You know when Syria launched those sarin gas attacks, the victims consumed a very small part of their body weight in sarin. So in your world – no damage was done.
Any more dumbass charts from the peanut gallery?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/
Remember kids, you can lead an idiot to the science, but you can’t make the idiot comprehend the science. Does someone want to explain to Dumbo that measuring by a percentage there is very little CO2 or water vapor in your car when it fries babies and dogs left inside while he’s inside the Walmart looking for his red MAGA cap??
https://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1606
Apparently Sammy can figure that part out, not to leave his baby grandchild or Afghan Hound to deep fry in the car when the % of CO2 is quite small, but the idea the Earth temperature is going up between a quarter to a half degree every year is too much for Sammy to grasp. Here’s video of Sammy’s Mom trying to explain the absorption of infrared light to Sammy.
https://youtu.be/iFmozCnOLew?t=15
Sammy, if you pay close attention to the squiggly lines in Figure 1, page 88, in this paper from about 7 years ago, discussing carbon being released from permafrost, you can see, very faintly, Satanic script written backwards.
https://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Pagani/3_2012%20DeConto_Nature.pdf
Read from right to left it can be translated as “Haha you dirty American liberals, we scientists fooled you again!!! Now we got more research grants paid for by ‘Big Government”, #Suckuhs!!!!” Only dirty liberals that buy and heavily consume Colorado weed and pray to Mephistopheles every night before bed can see it though. And only after using sulphur powder on your genitals. It explains here in a “Quora” link (those clever bast*rds!!!!) that Barkley Jr. indirectly turned me on to, why you need sulphur powder to read the Satanic script backwards:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-sulphur-associated-with-the-devil
P.S. Thanks again Barkley Rosser Jr.!!!! “Quora” has saved my life!!!! [ this “Quora” testimonial may or may not be a paid endorsement, in which the author may or may not have been promised 3 “ShamWows” and 5 Walmart towels that double as evening gowns or can transform into prom dresses. I may or may not be sending ONE of the magical transformation towels for the children of South Sudan ]. A girl has to survive you know……….
What’s fascinating is the illogical focus on warming, both gradual and averaged, but the KILLER is COLD. https://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20181122/dozens-of-dead-turtles-wash-ashore-on-cape Sudden and permanent COLD with death versus gradual and mitigation or adjustment.
Some here don’t believe we humans have lived through the glaciations and that these warm interglacials are BAD, BAD, BAD! Yes, even this interglacial has been warmer than we are now experiencing, but you wouldn’t know it from the alarmist side of climate science.
I have said this many times, but those prior warm periods are cited and correlated with human expansion. Names such as Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, versus the Little Ice Age(s). Yes there have been several.
The basic problem with perceiving climate change is the pace of change. Even though there are quickly occurring peaks and valleys in change when these are averaged to measure climate change, typically over several decades, these changes are minimized. For instance even during the past glaciation, that period when NYC was under buried by ice, that glacial ice sheet moved at only ~800 feet per year.
The last period of mountain glacier growth was during the Little Ice Age. What is being mis/or non-reported is that we are in similar SOLAR conditions, a major solar minimum, as that same cold period phenomenon. NASA is aware of the solar minima effects, cooling of the atmospheric thermosphere, a very high layer in the atmosphere. https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/
“To help keep track of what’s happening in the thermosphere, Mlynczak and colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index” (TCI)–a number expressed in Watts that tells how much heat NO (Nitric Oxide) molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (“Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (“Cold”).
“Right now, it is very low indeed,” says Mlynczak. “SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle.””
Is this a precursor to the next Little Ice Age? dunno, yet. Probably won’t know in my life time, but as 2slugs noted the evidence has been there for nearly a decade.
COLD KILLS! Gradual warming is actually beneficial to nearly all the biosphere. Is climate science focusing on the wrong effect?
Sammy has pretty well summarized the entire range of denier arguments in on post.
1. Mention lots of physical variables as if scientists had never heard of them or not already taken them into account in their calculations: solar variation, ocean currents, clouds, orbital variations, volcanoes.
2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is tiny, 0.04%. It couldn’t possible influence climate. (Plants need it. Humans exhale it. Photon interactions are nanoseconds.)
3. Climate was different during the age of dinosaurs 100 million years ago. Or the Little Ice Age. Or the Big Ice Age. Why worry if it changes now?
4. And the catch-all fallback — the numbers are all fake.
Sammy has done a superb job of summarizing the climate denier position. He’s been well trained to trot them out effortlessly at every opportunity. Just about every denier argument will fit into one of these categories.
@ Menzie
Menzie, I think when I warned you about traveling to China (unless your soul is just calling out to you to see family) you probably had a very good chuckle to yourself. Probably thinking silently to yourself my “intentions were good” but I was being quite the silly boy to hand out that warning. Now, it’s a given you probably haven’t made as many enemies as Changming Liu has. Maybe not any enemies. But things get weird over there sometimes, and their definition of state espionage gets very broad when it’s convenient for them. Including any crimes made in your vicinity while you’re over there.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/us/politics/china-exit-ban.html
Give one weird example. When I worked at a school over there, that university was quite different in that is was located in a Northeast province but was directly overseen by Beijing. They were getting tons of “federal” funds (more than other 4-year Universities of that level) because it had to do with assimilating smaller ethnicities with Han Chinese. Basically those students were “forced” to migrate to eastern China, in order to brainwash them that they weren’t being stomped on by the Han run national level government and policies. You can imagine to yourself how much the smaller ethnicities “loved” this policy of forced assimilation into the Han. I knew for a fact there were students (more than 1 probably less than 5 that semester/term, no, none my students), who had committed suicide jumping off the top of dorm buildings. This was told to me in secret, in literally whispered tones, as no one was to discuss it with me. I guess my dept. Dean and the Foreign Affairs Dean thought I was just too dumb that these little “news items” would work their way around back to me. This kind of crap happens all the time over there. And they don’t care about tabulating them—far from it.
I’ve thought for awhile now, certainly the last 15 years, probably longer, that editorial cartoons have been underrated for their power and ability to make a statement (political or otherwise). They seem to have been “punished” for their association with hardcopy newspapers. But I think they still have their place in the blogging world/community and the broader internet. This is a good example of that power editorial cartoons have to communicate an idea:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/opinion/trapped-between-two-bullies.html
If there is a way to support editorial cartoonists online (in a monetary way or just by clicking on links), I strongly encourage others to do so.
It’s amazing, the same people against Trump tariffs to fight unfair trading, stealing, coercing, and cheating want to spend many more trillions of dollars fighting a highly questionable war on global warming.
sammy Manmade CO2 is maybe 50 parts per million.
The pre-industrial level was ~280ppm, so manmade CO2 (so far) is closer to 130ppm, not 50ppm. We’re currently at ~410ppm. And if we stopped at 410ppm most of us would be just fine with that. But that’s not where we’re headed. That’s the problem.
Most of the things you listed are either transient or relatively constant. Changes in the earth’s orbit don’t explain global warming. In fact, the earth is moving away from the sun, albeit at a paleo scale. Volcanic activity tends to cool the earth, but again this is transient and easy to take into account. Changes in the earth’s axis or orientation to the sun take tens of thousands of years, not decades or centuries. Changes in solar radiation do not explain global warming, and to the extent that it does it only makes the climate skeptic’s case worse since we’re in a minimum. Cloud cover at the global level does not change. Ocean currents can affect climate, but once again what changes we’re seeing should be cooling the planet, so that doesn’t help your case either. As to your apparently thinking that CO2 can’t have much of an effect because 400ppm sounds like a small number, let me make a recommendation and a comment. My recommendation is to ingest 400ppm of arsenic and let us know if it has only a small effect, My comment is to point out that 400ppm gives us a warm but habitable planet. 200ppm gives us a frozen and uninhabitable planet. Don’t be fooled just because the number sounds small to you.
Simple question: Do you understand that the earth receives solar radiation, which it then converts and emits as infrared radiation? Carbon dioxide then absorbs much of that infrared radiation and heats the atmosphere. When you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere you increase the amount of infrared radiation that is absorbed rather than radiated out to space. If you’re planet Venus you have CO2 levels of 30,000ppm and a surface temperature four times the boiling point of water. Think about that and then keep in mind that a child born today will be living in a 1000ppm world under business as usual.
Simple question: Do you see that big yellow thing in the sky? It’s called the sun. It is the source of ALL warming, and it varies in output.
Another simple question: Do you know that Venus is 67 million miles from the sun, and that Earth is 170 million miles or nearly 3 times further?
Did you know that the approximate average CO2 concentration over the last 300 million years is 1000 parts per million?
Did you know there is no, zero, historical correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature? Only in your (failed) models. Why? Because it is an INSIGNIFICANT factor.
“Simple question: Do you see that big yellow thing in the sky? It’s called the sun. It is the source of ALL warming, and it varies in output.”
wow sammy, i guess no scientists have ever thought of this issue. you must be a genius!
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate
should we award you a phd and nobel prize now, or do we have more brilliant ideas emerging from your pumpkin head? next thing you know, you science deniers will be arguing the shining moon is increasing global temperatures once a month!
2 slugbaits,
“Most of the things you listed are either transient or relatively constant.”
So if all of the things I mentioned do not affect global temperatures, why did global temperatures change so dramatically in the past?
Kinda makes you wonder how those soybean inventories in the big white plastic bags are going, doesn’t it?? (Yes I know this is Maine and not Iowa or Illinois). The point still holds.
https://www.reddit.com/r/farming/comments/a0m7b0/tractor_is_useful_in_winter_too_so_much_snow_in_n/
Here’s some data the great soybean technocrat, known as “CoRev” in ivory tower circles, might take an interest in:
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/chapter-12-bankruptcies-on-the-rise-in-the-ninth-district
And in case the great soybean technocrat “CoRev” is cynical about that data, I have another link for him:
https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/indicatorsdata/agcreditsurvey/articles/2018/11-15-2018/lower-income-continues-to-pressure-farm-finances
Gee, I hope all the MAGA voting farmers don’t see this. It’ll me more dramatically climactic when they go down to pick up government welfare (so they can feed their children) and they see even more white faces than usual down there. They can all share with each other as they apply for “big government” welfare how glad they are they voted for donald trump with their red MAGA cap on. If you live in the Midwest USA and in 9–12 months see some old codger working the McDonald’s drive-thru so he can feed his children, don’t be terribly surprised. When that now bankrupt soybean farmer hands you your Big Mac and medium Mocha Frappe….. just pause an extra 5 seconds of silence for extra dramatic affect……. and tell him “I know this dumb-@ss on the internet named ‘CoRev’ and he never saw it coming either.”
Menzie, I found that The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine Review interesting in that it reviewed structure and provided recommendations for improving the messages as much as the actual validity of the messages. I did note this:
“Communicating Uncertainty and Risk: The various types of risk included in the draft NCA4 should be defined more explicitly. Improved consistency in the types of risk discussed and inclusion across chapters is also recommended. The draft NCA4 report deals with a broad range of uncertainties and risks inherent to the content of a national climate assessment. While some types of uncertainty and risk are discussed (e.g., likelihood and confidence), improved differentiation and more standardized treatment is needed across the draft report. ”
Certitude is one of my concerns over many reports, especially climate science reports, and t this report’s major messages are bereft and/or limited in defining the risk and uncertainty. For instance some of the messages are based upon the “worst case” scenario, RCP 8.5, which most analysts admit can and will not ever happen. Yet it is these messages that are emphasized. Examples include the 10% loss of GDP, the 15 foot estimate of possible sea level rise, and the possible 15 degree average temperature rise.
There are within the SCA4 Draft and within this article’s comments even more exaggerations derived from this “worst case” scenario.
again, more meaningless drivel from corev. have you ever actually read an article and actually understood the point made by the authors corev?
Baffled, yup! What point(s) are made with this Report?
your comments are the drivel, idiot.
Baffled, please re-read my comment. It was a test for you.
Glod sequestered all that coal and oil underground so man would not ruin paradise. Evil man, devious that he is, is digging it up and burning it to thwart Glod’s plan!!!!
Why does any one pay attention to Peaky? and the other bots?
Sammy, Glod’s creation is YUGE! He is a busy guy. A guy not a gay, of course. He can be everywhere at once but mighty that he is he gets tired. The good book tells us so. He found that his creation had an excess of carbon which prevented the completion the Paradise he was building for man. He is mighty but works in very slow ways. It took billions of years to sequester that excess carbon. The variation of climate you focus on are the result of Glod either at work or at rest.
See how easy it is to explain things if you have the right perspective???
“CoRev
November 26, 2018 at 4:50 am
Sherparik, sshhhh, pgl doesn’t like estimates for longer periods than months”
Lord – CoRev is a serial liar. Hey CoRev – when you have to resort to this level of misrepresentation of what the discussion is about – we all know you have zero interest in a serious discussion. OK – we now crown you HEAD TROLL!
Pgl, go back and read your responses re: the climate change time line. BTW, you might also look back at my comment re: the time frame covered in the Report. Just look through your responses to see how damningly ignorant they have been
Did you know that existing temperature measurements started just after the LOWS of the Little Ice Age? Do you actually believe rising temp since then are bad?
Oh, BTW, humans did exist during the Little Ice Age.
The IPCC Executive Summary sums up the issue succinctly: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm
sammy, this was a mathematical statement. my guess is you do not have a clue what it implies. but if you read the rest of the summary point, rather than cherry pick, what it basically said is that because this is a chaotic system (mathematically this means that similar inputs can produce different outputs-not that it is a chaotic response in the common sense of the word), you should not consider these solutions from a deterministic sense. you should interpret the results in a probabilistic sense, to better understand what outcomes may happen from small changes in the inputs, and what is the probability of each of those events occurring. it is not that these nonlinear systems cannot give predictions in the future, it is simply you cannot treat them deterministically because of your uncertainty with the input variables. sammy, if you do not understand the issues of mathematical modeling of climate, you probably should not be commenting on them in general.
Sigh!!!! The key phrase in Sammy’s quote from the IPCC was: “and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” That overall IPCC statement is certainly true for weather models which can predict just for a few days in the future and even worse for the climate models which try to predict decades in the future.
Even the past AR5 projections are diverging from reality.
We are getting close to time for a new IPCC AR. The most recent IPCC Report, SR15, are hinting at some remarkable changes might be forthcoming.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/18/remarkable-changes-to-carbon-emission-budgets-in-the-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c/
“Key points
The SR15 estimates of the carbon budgets that will allow us to remain within the 1.5°C and 2°C targets are far larger than those given in AR5 over five times as high from end 2017 for a 66% probability of not exceeding 1.5°C warming….”
corev, as i stated above, you just like sammy have a misunderstanding of what is being presented by chaos theory. you are trying to interpret this in a common world way, and the argument has been presented in a mathematical term. your “key” phrase is incorrect and cherry picked. if you look at the more complete response in the summary
“Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential. ”
your quote: “and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” you cherry picked this quote, and the way you presented it, are not correct. chaotic systems are deterministic, but they are not linear with input and output. so you cannot simply double an input and get twice the output. they are very sensitive to changes in that input. but in theory, the same input will produce the same output each time. so you need to interpret the outputs in a probabilistic sense-which are most likely to occur. barkley alluded to this when he rightly claimed the output moves about averages which can be understood.
corev, you have absolutely no understanding of nonlinear and chaotic systems. it is best to leave this topic alone. it is difficult enough for the experts in the field. and ignorant novice like yourself only looks like a fool wading into this territory.
Sammy,
It is very difficult to forecast behavior of chaotic systems in the near term. That is why weather forecasts beyond about a week are mostly useless. But chaotic systems often move about averages whose changes can be modeled. The butterfly effect is a near term effect, not a long term one.
This is really another variation on the weather versus climate issue.
BTW, I am widely known as an expert on chaos theory, Sammy. Really. Go look at the Wikipedia entry on complexity economics or my Wikipedia entry. You are in over your head on this one.
Barkley says: “But chaotic systems often move about averages whose changes can be modeled.”, and in Climate Modeling the most often used average is TEMPERATURE. Recent model temperature projections have been well off, and POLICY based upon these projections would therefore be dubious.
As are the claims of potential RUNAWAY conditions, or huge sea level rises by 2100 from which some local Governments have made funding and development decisions.
CoRev,
Both of you should have noted the sentence that followed the one sammy quoted: that therefore only statistical probability distributions can be estimated. Which they do, attempting to take into account of the likelihood of extreme events, which are more likely because precisely of those coupled nonlinear dynamices.
You also are in over your head.
Barkley,
I read the IPCC (which is commonly assumed to be pro-AGW) report as incredibly modest. I says we need to improve the modelling/analysis in many ways.
1) “Unless networks are significantly improved, it may be difficult or impossible to detect climate change over large parts of the globe.”
2) “Given the complexity of the climate system and the inherent multi-decadal time-scale, there is a need for long-term consistent data to support climate and environmental change investigations and projections. Data from the present and recent past, climate-relevant data for the last few centuries, and for the last several millennia are all needed. There is a particular shortage of data in polar regions and data for the quantitative assessment of extremes on the global scale.”
3) “Understand and characterise the important unresolved processes and feedbacks, both physical and biogeochemical, in the climate system. Increased understanding is needed to improve prognostic capabilities generally. The interplay of observation and models will be the key for progress. The rapid forcing of a non-linear system has a high prospect of producing surprises.”
4) “Link models of the physical climate and the biogeochemical system more effectively, and in turn improve coupling with descriptions of human activities. At present, human influences generally are treated only through emission scenarios that provide external forcings to the climate system. In future more comprehensive models, human activities need to begin to interact with the dynamics of physical, chemical, and biological sub-systems through a diverse set of contributing activities, feedbacks, and responses.”
I guess you think you are so much smarter than I, but so much smarter than the IPCC experts? A truly wise man knows what he does not know. So you, by this standard, are not a wise man at all.
actually sammy, those types of statements are pretty standard in a scientific report. no scientist claims to know it all. they will always outline areas in their work that need improvement-that is what you were quoting. but that does not mean that the work produced is wrong. this is simply part of the scientific process. you are interpreting those statements incorrectly. just like you interpreted the idea of chaotic systems incorrectly. these are simply areas that scientists know need improvement to increase the accuracy of their work-it in no way invalidates their past work. if you had a scientific background, you would better appreciate the reasons for these comments rather than armchair quarterback an ignorant perspective.
Sammy,
Did I say anything that contradicts any of this? I do not think I did. Of course we need more and better information, blah blah blah, although most of the people pushing the stuff you like to cite think we should stop studying this as it is all just a plot by these money grubbing climatologists to get more funding. Which is it?? Do we need to study it more or just stop it and give tax breaks to fossil fuel companies since they are so wonderful?
And, yeah, I am reasonably convinced that I know than you do about all this. Indeed, I have done research with climatologists on this off and on for what is now approaching half a century. I initially learned about chaos theory from a climatologist at the U of Wisconsin in Madison (now dead) where Menzi is in the early 1970s, so long ago that they were not even calling it chaos theory yet. That only came along in 1975 with the Li-Yorke paper in the American Mathematical Monthly, “Period 3 Equals Chaos.” Yes, I know more about this than a whole lot of people.
Menzie’s been quiet lately. He must be going over the most recent Morgan Stanley report on credit markets. You think Menzie ‘ll share his copy of the report with us?? Damn it man, let’s get creative here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkR5n9KQXNU
Here are several areas where the Report is either WRONG or ignores the actual real world data for MODELED output while emphasizing the least likely (translated to IMPOSSIBLE) outcome.
1) Sea Level Rise New Stud by Dr. Judityh Curry file:///C:/Users/Don/AppData/Local/Temp/special-report-sea-level-rise-4.pdf
2) US Storms Hurricanes – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0165-2
Tornadoes – https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.5285
3) Arctic Sea Ice – Volume Increasing – https://realclimatescience.com/2018/09/thirty-percent-increase-in-arctic-sea-ice-volume-over-the-past-decade/ (Current data Reported on several blogs following it. This is just a representative example)
There are other examples to compare against this Report’s exaggerated predictions, but this is a start.
don, just curious what your point is with including the nature article? could you explain to me the important features of that article? i cannot access it due to paywall, but may pursue the article if it is worthwhile. nature articles are usually pretty solid.
don, just wanted to follow up on that nature article. any details?
Judityh Curry, sadly, is the John Phillips of contemporary discussions about climate science.
Not familiar with the gentleman? (Don’t be embarrassed, few study the history of science). Cross reference Philips with Darwin.
Since you appear to have an a priori position on the subject of climate change, I’m not counting on any change on your views, but you might find enlightening, if not enriching, to learn about how difficult it was for distinguished older scientists to accept that their understanding was limited.
CoRev’s star is indeed rising. The man who has no peer in his knowledge of soybeans, economics, and kitchen remodeling (you certainly can completely remodel your kitchen for $1000!) now is leading the way in putting to bed any worries about understanding climate change. (Hint: you don’t have to)
His grasp of physics (plus geology/geophysics), oceanography, et. al., has indeed stunned regular readers of this blog. In that respect, he’s been closely aligned with Dr. Peak Trader and Dr. Sammy, whose knowledge of multiple sciences has enabled them to soar to prominence here as well as in their own minds.
No doubt, given our President’s desire to advance all sciences, we’re looking at future administrators of NOAA as well as stars and moderators of their own programs on the Science Channel.
Look out, Dr. Tyson. Here comes CoRev.
i like to consider corev as cliff claven, although not quite a lovable loser.
It was Cliff who reminded us that the bubonic plague was caused by the dreaded bubon, a warning I’ve taken to heart many times when contemplating cleanliness, godliness, and the goofiness of those who enjoy posing as, uh, know-it-all bubons.
No, CoRev, Arctic sea ice is not increasing. Your source on this is just wacko.
Try https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs-arctic-sea-ice . Sept. 2018 had the fourth lowest ice volume of any September. Lowest was in 2012, way below others. Second lowest was 2007, third lowest, 2016, which was year of peak annual mean temperature. Trend is downwards at 12.8% per decade.
Please try not to just outright tie.
Barkley, as usual in Climate Science, it depends upon which source is used. http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20181127.png That’s DMI for those familiar wirth the various sources.
Please in the future respond to what was written instead of what you can google that looks similar. There is a difference in baselines between the sources, but that doesn’t affect my source’s claim.
BTW, when adding links please assure they actually work.
CoRev,
I looked at this link, and all it shows is the last five years. You cannot tell anything from that. Again, 2018 has the fourth lowest level of ice in September. The funny thing is that your figure did not even include the years that might make your case look stronger as they had the least ice, 2012 and 2007. Sheesh, you are so incompetent.
BTW, have you guys noticed that you have almost no support from outside the US? This is one of the things (along with our high gun ownership rate) that when one goes abroad foreigners are almost embarrassed to mention, why so many people in the US are so vigorously trying to deny what is so obviously going on. After all, even other nations that a re big fossil fuel exporters are signatories on the Paris Climate Accord, places like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Indeed, the US is the only nation not on it. Why is that, CoRev? Is it that all those other people in the rest of the world are a bunch of ignorant nimcompoops while you are a great insightful genius? I think 2slug has loaid out the pathetic track record of your various totally failed forecasts. You are not even a chaotic system. You are just a chronically wrong one.
Openly wondering if this blog post by Marissa Gentry meets Professor James Hamilton’s high standards for discussions of race (“Let’s pretend it doesn’t exist. Non-discussion of topics always helps with progression on issues”)
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11566
Gentry quotes a research paper done by a UC Berkeley statistics prof Philip Stark.
https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/25ff22be-8a1b-4c97-9d88-084c8d98187a/ScienceOpen/3507_XE6680747344554310733.pdf
The general idea seems to be that student evaluations of professors are quite useful. But only useful up to the point where Stark and Brian Delay personally agree with them. At the exact point where they no longer agree with Stark’s and Delay’s personal and subjective opinions on it, then student evaluations become “trash”. So it’s good now we have that straightened out. Now, if we can get all the grade school teachers to give high STEM scores to teenage girls who have zero aptitude for math and science (and often zero genuine interest in the topic), we’ll have this whole thing solved where we can all feel very righteous when we look in the mirror.
[ Imagining Stark and Delay looking in the mirror each day and the mast*rbatory thought process ] “I’m pro woman. Pro-woman means telling little girls they are interested in things they have low interest in and low aptitude for. WOW!!! WOW!!! I am such a great person!!! Damn I am a great person. WOW!!! I am a saint!!!! You go me!!! You go me!!!! I wonder if I can give a humanitarian medal to MYSELF??? Damn I am an awesome person!!!!!”
Brings new meaning to “trumpian” in the self-assessment department.
If the probability of climate change(by human activities) occurring is not anywhere near negligible as the chance of striking lottery first prize and the cost to humanity due to climate change(by human activities) is humongous(matter of life and death for human civilization), then it occurs to me that it is quite obvious as to what options human should take. Wouldn’t it be wiser for human to rather err on the side of caution in matter of climate change than face extinction? ….Or I suggest we go ask the best poker players.