273

Global Warming, Carbon Dioxide and the Solar Minimum

Renee Parsons

Since Climate Change (CC) has been a constant of life on Gaia with the evolution of photosynthesis 3.2 billion years ago and has more complexities than this one essay can address; ergo, this article will explore co2’s historic contribution to global warming (GW) as well as explore the relationship of Solar Minimum(SM) to Earth’s climate.

Even before the UN-initiated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed in 1988, the common assumption was that carbon dioxide was thekey greenhouse gas and that its increases were the driving force solely responsible for rising climate temperatures. 

At that time, anthropogenic (human caused) GW was declared to be the existential crisis of our time, that the science was settled and that we, as a civilization, were running out of time.

And yet, in the intervening years, uncertainty remained about GW’s real time impacts which may be rooted in the fact that many of IPCC’sessential climate forecasts of consequence have not materializedas predicted.  Even as the staid Economist magazine recently noted:

Over the past fifteen years, air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar.”

Before the IPCC formed, NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii registered co2 levelsat under 350 ppm (parts per million) with the explicit warning that if co2 exceeded that number, Mother Earth was in Big Trouble – and there would be no turning back for humanity.  Those alarm bells continue today as co2 levels have risen to 414 ppm as temperatures peaked in 1998.

From the outset, the IPCC controlled the debate by limiting its charter

to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

In other words, before any of the science had been done, the IPCC’s assumption was that man-made activity was responsible and that Nature was not an active participant in a process within its own sphere of interest. As an interdisciplinary topic of multiple diversity, the IPCC is not an authority on all the disciplines of science within the CC domain.

While there is no dispute among scientists that the Sun and its cyclical output is the true external force driving Earth’s energy and climate system as part of a Sun-centered Universe, the IPCC’s exclusion of the Sun from its consideration can only be seen as a deliberate thwarting of a basic fundamental law of  science, a process which assures a free inquiry based on reason and evidence.

It is the Sun which all planets of the solar system orbit around, that has the strongest gravitational pull in the solar system, is the heaviest of all celestial bodies and its sunspots in relation to Earth’s temperatures has been known since Galileo began drawing sunspots in 1613.

Yet the IPCC which touts a ‘scientific view of climate change’would have us believe the Sun is irrelevant and immaterial to the IPCC’s world view and Earth’s climate; hardly a blip on their radar.

In the GW debate, co2 is dismissed as a colorless, odorless pollutant that gets little credit as a critical component for its contribution to life on the planet as photosynthesis does not happen without co2.  A constant presence in Earth’s atmosphere since the production of oxygen, all living organisms depend on co2 for its existence. 

As a net contributor to agriculture, plants absorb co2 as they release oxygen into the atmosphere that we two- and four-leggeds depend on for sustenance and oxygen as necessities for survival on Earth. 

There are scientists who believe that Earth has been in a co2 ‘famine’ while others applaud Earth’s higher co2 levels in the last three decades as a regreening of the planet.

While An Inconvenient Truth (2006) and An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power (2016) stage managed the climate question as a thoroughly politicized ‘settled science’ with former veep Al Gore declaring the drama a ‘moral’ issue, there is no room for any preference that does not depend on a rigorous, skeptical, independent investigation based on evidentiary facts rather than the partisan politics of emotion and subjective opinion.

Given the prevalence of weather in our daily lives, it would seem elementary for engaged citizens and budding paleoclimatologists to understand Earth’s ancient climate history and atmospherein order to gain an informed perspective on Earth’s current and future climate.

As a complicated non-linearsystem, climate is a variable composition of rhythmic spontaneity with erratic and even chaotic fluctuations making weather predictions near-impossible.  

Climate is an average of weather systems over an established long term period while individual weather events indicative of a short term trend are not accurate forecasts of CC.  While ice core readings provide information, they do not show causation of GW but only measure the ratio between co2 and rising temperatures. It is up to scientists to interpret the results.  And that’s where this narrative takes, like ancient weather and climate patterns, an unpredictable turn.

It might be called an inconvenient truth that ‘skeptic’ scientists have known for the last twenty years that the Vostok ice core samples refute co2’s role as a negative and even question its contribution as the major greenhouse gas.  

It is no secret to many climate professionals that water vapor with co2 at 3.6%.

Located at the center of the Antarctica ice sheet, the Vostok Research Center is a collaborative effort where Russian and French scientists collected undisturbed ice core data in the 1990s to measure the historic presence of carbon dioxide levels. 

The Vostoksamples provided the first irrefutable evidence of Earth’s climate history for 420,000 year including the existence of four previous glacial and interglacial periods. 

Those samples ultimately challenged the earlier premise of co2’s predominant role and that carbon dioxide was not the climate culprit once thought.  It is fair to add that IPCC related scientists believe Vostok to be ‘outliers’ in the GW debate.

The single most significant revelation of the ice core studies has been that GW could not be solely attributed to co2 since carbon dioxide increases occurred aftertemperature increases and that an extensive ‘lag’ time exists between the two.

Logic and clear thinking demands that cause (co2) precedes the effect (increased temps) is in direct contradiction to the assertion that carbon dioxide has been responsible for pushing higher global temperatures.  Just as today’s 414 ppm precedes current temps which remain within the range of normal variability.

Numerouspeer-reviewedstudies confirmed that co2 lags behind temperature increases, originally by as much as 800 years

That figure was later increased to 8,000 years and by 2017 the lag time between co2 and temperature had been identified as 14,000 years.   As if a puzzlement from the Quantum world, it is accepted that CO2 and temperatures are correlated as they rise and fall together, yet are separated by a lag time of thousands of years.

What is obscure from public awareness in the GW shuffle is that geologic records have identified CC as a naturally occurring cyclewith glacial periods of 100,000 year intervals that are interrupted by brief, warming interglacial periods lasting 15,000-20,000 years.

Those interglacial periods act as a temperate respite from what is the world’s natural normal Ice Age environment.  Within those glacial and interglacial periods are cyclical subsets of global cooling and warming just as today’s interglacial warm period began at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age about 12,000 years ago.   Since climate is not a constant, check these recent examples of Earth’s climate subsets:

200 BC – 600 AD: Roman warming cycle

440 AD – 950 AD: Dark Ages cool cycle

950 AD – 1300 AD: Medieval warming cycle

1300 AD – 1850 AD: Renaissance Little Ice Age

1850 – Present: Modern warming cycle

In addition, climate records have shown that peak co2 temperatures from the past are relative to today’s co2 level without the addition of a fossil fuelcontribution.  For instance, just as today’s measurement at 414 ppm contains a ‘base’ co2 level of approximately 300 ppm as recorded in the 19th century, any co2 accumulation over 300 ppm would be considered anthropogenic (man-made) and be portrayed as “historic” or ‘alarmingly high’ and yet remain statistically insignificant compared to historic co2 norms.

During the last 600 million years, only the Carboniferous period and today’s Holocene Epoch each witnessed co2 levels at less than 400 ppm.

During the Early Carboniferous Period, co2 was at 1500 ppm with average temperatures comparable to 20 C; 68 F before diving to 350 ppm during the Mid Carboniferous period with a reduced temperature of 12 C;54F. In other words, current man-made contributions to co2 are less than what has been determined to be significant.

Contrary to the IPCC’s stated goal, NASA recognizes that “All weather on Earth, from the surface of the planet into space, begins with the Sun” and that weather experienced on Earth’s surface is “influenced by the small changes the Sun undergoes during its solar cycle.”

A Solar Minimum(SM) is a periodic 11 year solar cycle normally manifesting a weak magnetic field with increased radiation and cosmic rays while exhibiting decreased sunspot activity that, in turn, decreases planetary temperatures.

Today’s solar cycle is referred to as the Grand Minimum which, according to NOAA, predicts reductions from the typical 140 – 220 sunspots per solar cycle to 95 – 130 sunspots.

As the Sun is entering “one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age,” a NASA scientist predicted a SM that could ”set a Space Age record for cold” but has recently clarified his statement as it applies only to the Thermosphere.

In October 2018, NOAA predicted “Winter Outlook favors Warmer Temperaturefor much of the US,” as above-normal precipitation and record freezing temperatures were experienced throughout the country.

As of this writing, with the Sun noticeably intense, Earth has experienced 22 consecutive dayswithout sunspots for a 2019 total of 95 spotless days at 59%. 

In 2018, 221 days were spotless at 61%. Spaceweather.com monitors sunspot (in)activity.

With the usual IPCC and Non-IPCCsplit, the SM is expected to be at its lowest by 2020 with a peak between 2023 and 2026 as it exhibits counterintuitive erratic weather anomalies including cooler temps due to increased cloud cover, higher temps due to solar sunspot-free brilliance, potential electrical events,  heavy rain and flooding and drought, a shorter growing season, impacts on agriculture and food production systems or it may all be a walk in the park with shirt sleeves in January.

While there is clearly an important climate shift occurring even as the role of co2 and human activity as responsible entities remains problematic, the elimination of co2 and its methane sidekick would be exceedingly beneficial for a healthy planet.  It is time to allow scientists to be scientists without political agendas or bureaucratic interference as the Sun and Mother Earth continue in their orbit as they have for eons of millennia.

As Earth’s evolutionary climate cycles observe the Universal law of the natural world, the Zero Point Field, which produces an inexhaustible source of ‘free’ energy that Nikola Tesla spoke of, is the means by which inter stellar vehicles travel through time/space.  The challenge for ingenious, motivated Earthlings is to harness and extract the ZPF proclaiming a new planetary age of technological innovation with no rapacious industry, no pollution, no shortages, no gas guzzlers and no war.

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
273 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Antonym
Antonym
Sep 27, 2019 3:41 AM

Good, but lets not eliminate all CO2 as all plants depend on it.

Additionally statistics is not a strong side of most climate scientists as they made a fundamental mistake in their temperature projections: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

Next satellite observations over 37 recent years have shown that while the Arctic warms, the Antarctic doesn’t: CO2 either warms both poles or non but not just one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425716302218

Brad
Brad
Sep 27, 2019 2:13 AM

“IPCC’sessential climate forecasts of consequence have not materializedas predicted.”
– they have. Its only if you cherry pick the start and end dates so the start is an extreme high and the end date is at an extreme low that it appears flat

“Even as the staid Economist magazine recently noted:”
– the quoted ‘recent’ article was 2013. The hottest 5 years on record have all been since then

“Those alarm bells continue today as co2 levels have risen to 414 ppm as temperatures peaked in 1998.”
– as above, temperatures did not peak in 1998

“the IPCC which touts a ‘scientific view of climate change’would have us believe the Sun is irrelevant and immaterial to the IPCC’s world view and Earth’s climate;”
– Its not considered irrelevant, its just much smaller – ‘Over the past century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change,’
As global temperature increases accelerate the relevance of this component will continue to shrink.

“gets little credit as a critical component for its contribution to life ”
– Oh FFS. Everyone knows and recognises CO2 is essential for plant growth.

“There are scientists who believe that Earth has been in a co2 ‘famine’ ”
– Who??

“It is no secret to many climate professionals that water vapor with co2 at 3.6%.”
– this doesnt make sense

“since carbon dioxide increases occurred aftertemperature increases”
– yes, CO2 concentration can increase as a result of temperature rises, and ALSO it can cause temperature rises. Thats what make it a feedback loop.
And it should be no surprise that human induced climate change did not occur before humans.

“geologic records have identified CC as a naturally occurring cyclewith glacial periods of 100,000 year intervals that are interrupted by brief, warming interglacial periods”
– yes, we live in a geological period called the Quaternary which is an ice age. We are currently in an interglacial period which has been occuring about every 100,000 years, and typically lasts for less then 10k years. We were already at the the typical peak temperature of that interglacial, and now we’re seeing an incredibly abrupt increase in temperatures which breaks the trend

I could go on, but honestly whats the point..

Omen Necrofis
Omen Necrofis
Aug 25, 2019 9:29 AM

Just to share…

Human CO 2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO 2 – International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences ( Published at 4 June 2019).

Omen Necrofis
Omen Necrofis
Aug 25, 2019 9:26 AM

I’m geologist and i’m totally agree that anything happen on earth is naturally… not caused by human

Omen Necrofis
Omen Necrofis
Aug 25, 2019 3:58 AM

Just to Share..

Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2 – International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (4 June 2019).

Max King
Max King
Jul 5, 2019 1:48 AM

n the simplest possible terms, naturally occurring climate changes and CO2 levels have not been correlated – i.e. naturally occurring climate changes were not caused by the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The situation now is that man-made emissions of CO2, methane and other gases are accumulating above natural levels in the Earth’s atmosphere. As a consequence, these gases will cause a retention of heat (like the glass in a greenhouse) and the Earth will become warme

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jul 21, 2019 5:19 PM
Reply to  Max King

Max King
Your July 5 1:48pm comment is wrong in so many ways, it’s hard to begin an analysis !

There is no such thing as a “natural level” of greenhouse gases.

CO2, for one example, has ranged from about 200 ppm, to at least 4,000 ppm.

No one knows what CO2 level is normal, and given the huge natural range, adding another 100 or 200 ppm of man made CO2 is a small change.

The claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some amount of warming is an assumption, based on closed system, water vapor free, infrared spectroscopy experiments, done in laboratories.

The actual effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is unknown.

The large addition of man made CO2 from 1940 through 2018 was accompanied by an increase in the average temperature of about +0.6 degrees C., which is a warming rate of less than +0.8 degrees C. per century.

No one knows what caused that 1940 through 2018 warming — it could have been 100% natural, or 100% CO2, or some combination of natural and man made causes.

Everyone should know that +0.8 degrees C. warming in a century is harmless, ESPECIALLY because the warming since 1975 was mainly in higher (colder) latitudes, mainly in the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night. Warmer winter nights in Alaska are NOT a climate crisis !

My climate science blog,
for more information:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Max King
Max King
Jul 22, 2019 1:00 AM
Reply to  Richard Greene

The natural levels of atmospheric CO2 are those that are maintained by the natural carbon cycle.

As with the rest of your so-called analysis, your statement *CO2, for one example, has ranged from about 200 ppm, to at least 4,000 ppm* fully qualifies as fantasy.

Newport R.I. is one very, very, very tiny part of the globe.

Amateurs should refrain from trying to play with science and scientific data.

And “cherry-picking” comments from news media is very amateurish.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jul 24, 2019 7:25 PM
Reply to  Max King

Max King
Your comments are science free, data free, and logic free.

Newport, RI was mentioned in the New York Times as facing a disaster from climate change.

I published information on my blog to show that sea level rise and land subsidence has been a problem there for centuries, not a new problem related to man made CO2.

Although I typed the article slow, so slow people like you could understand, it apparently was way over your head.

You are obviously clueless about the history of our planet based on the work of geologists over several centuries.

They are real scientists working on real science.

Your lack of knowledge about past levels of CO2 is shocking.

Don’t you know that huge amounts of CO2 from the past atmosphere are
currently sequestered underground as coal, oil and natural gas?

Don’t you even realize that by burning those fuels, we are “recycling” sequestered CO2
back into the atmosphere, where it was a long time ago?

It appears you know very little about the history of our planet.

I guess you are more interested in wild guesses about the future of our planet?

Such as your beloved “computer game playing government bureaucrats with science degrees”, making wrong global average temperature predictions for over 30 years, using an obviously wrong theory from the 1970’s.

Wrong wild guess predictions of the future climate are not real science.

Merely having a science degree does not mean your work is real science.

That’s YOUR computer game inept team, Max, not mine — and it’s the shaky “house of cards” foundation of all YOUR coming climate change catastrophe fantasies !

midnight
midnight
Jul 2, 2019 12:54 AM

What in the world does this “sentence” mean?:

It is no secret to many climate professionals that water vapor with co2 at 3.6%.

BigB
BigB
Jun 25, 2019 8:58 AM

Reply to Mr “I love global warming” below.

This is why climate framing is so flawed: and a deliberate diminution of the Human Impact convergence of crises.

Claims were made that insect and species extinction are the result of “computer games”. Both the IUCN ‘Red List’ and recent comprehensive IPBES report were conclusively based on raw data. Human activities are harming species, ecosystems, and threatening biospheric integrity across the globe.

https://www.ipbes.net/

Also, “the last 150 of global warming have been the most prosperous”. This is the sort of bullshit Pinker and Lindzen come out with. It is not true. It is so not true even Monbiot refuted Pinker’s similar claims. Here is Jeremy Lent’s refutal.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-05-18/steven-pinkers-ideas-about-progress-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/

Those 150 years are also known as the ‘Petroleum Interval’. All ‘progress’ and ‘prosperity’ are intimately connected to burning fossil fuels. To some these may be the best on record; to most they were years of war, imperialism, and planetary desecration. But we don’t frame it like that in the imperial heartlands. We frame it as ‘prosperity’ and ‘progress’.

Well, it’s over. And it is not just a matter of opinion, but stone cold bedrock science. If you haven’t heard of EROI, it is a way of quantifying entropy. Specifically, it is a way of determining the amount of excess energy available for society, arts, welfare, healthcare and economic activity. And, due to depletion, it will always tend to trend down – exponentially.

Scroll down the page and you will find a link to the ‘net energy cliff’. I already placed the UK on there – on the edge of collapse. The rest of the world is not far behind. Recent research puts our master resource – oil – at 14:1. That’s on the edge of an exponential slide into collapse. Based on a scientifically sound 2nd Law derived statement.

Entropy is bad enough on its own, but we have amassed $244tn worth of debts. And that is what they are telling us about. Deutsche Bank alone has $43tn in derivatives exposure – bigger than the ECB or Germany’s ability to bail in or out. There is a similar black hole in Australia and China ($37tn ‘off-balance’ hidden debt). Those debts are increasing exponentially and are becoming unservicable. There is a ‘liquidity crisis’ – solution …more liquidity, more debt.

What that amounts to is the biggest asset transfer – from poor to already obscenely rich – in history, exaggerating wealth polarisation to levels of gross obscenity never seen before. That is what the last 150 years have really brought, planetary destruction and the rise of wealth monopolisation by a few. And when there is a crisis: that obscene wealth will be used to buy up tangible assets for fiat …putting us one step closer to being fully owned. Some progress?

Part of that ‘accumulation by dispossession’ wealth strategy – aks green neoliberalism – is to privatise ‘natural capital’ and financialise the environment. More debt, more entropy, more depletion, using nature as capital and collateral …do I have to spell out the entailments for humanity and nature. Ruin is forever.

To which the ‘climate debate’ – as a forum for the self-absorbed indulgence of cherished beliefs is a character mask – masking the real dynamics of civilisational atrophy. To those who say: “nothing to see here, the climate is fine”. The climate may well be fine: but in the broader debate no one wants – humanities activities are heavily negatively impacting everything else. To the brink of collapse.

Climate models have inbuilt economic models of exponential growth to 2100. Anyone can check the details of the scenario I have outlined – there is no way that this trajectory can be met. The economy will collapse long before then. Capital is already rendering itself meaningless. As is the ‘climate debate’.

What isn’t meaningless is the death, famine, and global misery that capital accumulation structurally and violently imposes globally. On humanity, on biodiversity, and on the biosphere. So, you had your debate: I have to ask – cui bono …humanity, biodiversity, or the corporatocracy?

Strategic doubt is their greatest weapon. What resolve or focus on the Human Impact crisis has been achieved? I came here to say that we need to reframe the debate to one that favours humanity. This world, that in the capitalist utopian view has never had it so good – is actually close to collapse. And humanity is wittingly, unwittingly, and in some cases, like mine, unwillingly …ceding control and letting the green neoliberal corporatocracy frame the consensus debate and unroll its long-term plans for humanity.

No one wants that: so we need a new dissensus debate and counter-hegemonic strategy by reframing the debate with humanism. I’m suggesting ‘entropy framing’ – because they cannot financialise that with fiat. Which can never happen by reductive focus on the climate. Whatever happens to the climate: we are still unsustainably disrupting everything else – including both ecology and economy …condemning our fellow humanity to permanent poverty so we can spout hot air.

leonardo
leonardo
Jun 25, 2019 12:26 PM
Reply to  BigB

BigB,

We are told that John Von Neumann suggested Claude Shannon to use the word “entropy” in his theory on information – because, he said: no one understands entropy, and therefore you will always be at an advantage in an argument.

Apart from the word “entropy” you are not talking about climate. You are talking about a lot of problems we see in the world, and you want them all to be interwoven. To summarize in your own words: Humanities activities in this world, that in the capitalist utopian view has never had it so good, are heavily negatively impacting everything else. To the brink of collapse.

Well, the number of humans on this planet is quiet impressive – because we are so civilized that we do not cull and kill. And life is organized in a certain way – the quality of which is disputable.

To be clear: I’m an anti-alarmist. I’m an anti-alarmist, because no science in the world can tell us what’s happening with the climate. Climate-crisis is a hoax, and the consensus about climate-crisis is also a hoax.
There are two kind of alarmists. One, the climatologist who has made it his job to save the world because “his” science tells him that our world is collapsing. These men are dangerous.
But, there is a second group. People who believe that humans are a negative force on this planet, destroying everything. They believe of course in climate-crisis. But they believe in a lot of more crises. These are the worst, far more dangerous. They jumped on the bandwagon of the climate alarmist community, with malice aforethoughts.

Someone wrote of this group:

The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won’t last much longer, protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods and a dislike of the human race.

You can organize life in a lot of ways. Apart from political systems and economic systems, you have healthcare, food distribution, housing etc. etc. This leaves you with a muddle of interactions – with not the slightest idea when a specific interaction will jump up in the chain of consecutive interactions. Entropy of the highest level.

There is no right answer! So, if you think the world is that bad think twice, and … look before you leap.

btw: No model can tell you what you may expect to happen around 2100 AD. Neither are there models who tell you what will happen in 2050 … not even for 2025. What is more: climate models have not a single experiment, nor a well understood physical law to underpin the results.

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 25, 2019 1:23 PM
Reply to  BigB

BIGB! You assert there’s a climate agenda perpetrated by a “green neoliberal corporatocracy”, you can’t at the same time defend the veracity a UN organisation like IPBES!

In the past you have stated that:

The neoliberal climate agenda has been in gestation and development phase for decades….

and this agenda is…

manufacturing consent for their ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’; Information Age; the ‘Eurasian Information Infrastructure’ Eastern technocracy rising; the GND/CCC ‘climate economy’ …fronted by a transfixed 16 year old girl, VVP, Xi, Corbyn, Gates: etc.

You also say that…

The ‘debate’ is a narrative trap. It was weaponised and won before we even started to enter the public forum. They sponsored much of the research – including the Limits of Growth in the 70s.

How can you unquestioningly vouch for this clear front to your “neoliberal climate agenda”, whose tag line is “Science and Policy for People and Nature”!? ha!

You say in one post below:

One thing that pisses me off about the cyclical climate denialist tropes is that they really assume scientists are either corrupt or stupid …or both. And that any possible deviation – the urban heat island effect, for instance – hasn’t been accounted for, figured in, and corrected for. So the climate denialist pseudo-scientist take is somehow empirically superior.

Well, I wouldn’t hang my hat on the science either. But the alternative is disregard the precautionary principle and run the experiment live …

And in another post you say (my emphasis):

What virtually no one can get their head around is that the science is sound. The agenda generated from the science is nepharious. I respectfully submit that we will never win any debate centred on climate. The result was pre-determined nearly half a century ago.

You are clearly arguing both sides of the debate here! Coupled with your long, sprawling posts, one could easily view this as obstructing this debate – aka trolling!

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Jun 26, 2019 9:36 PM
Reply to  BigB

BigB, what you have posted is so relevant and accurate, yet people here and elsewhere still hang on to their old political and warped belief systems.

What saddens me the most is that what should be empathetic people of the left are bizarrely cynical and tragically still fighting the old political battles between the left and right, every issue becomes politicised unnecessarily.

We need to understand, in order to survive as a species, that there are REAL problems, but also REAL solutions, and politics is really a diversion, in fact slows us down, dangerously so.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 27, 2019 5:54 PM
Reply to  BigB

Big B, you are clueless beyond belief on the subject of climate science.

You do, however, appear to know a lot about climate astrology.

You are trapped in a leftist computer game fantasy world where the future climate is claimed to be known with great confidence … while the past climate keeps changing due to repeated arbitrary data “adjustments.

The computer game predictions have been far from reality for over 30 years — of course you could not care less — ignore the wrong predictions and keep on predicting a climate crisis every year.

From 1940 through 2018, the rate of actual warming (less than +0.8 degrees C. pert century), has been completely ignored by the computer gamers, who are predicting QUADRUPLE that rate of warming (when excluding the Russian model, that seems accurate, from the average)

You are so foolish as to believe another computer game, that invents millions of new species out of thin air, then decides one million of them will die, has something to do with real science.

When asked for a list of the Latin names for the species predicted to die off — we are told “Never Mind That — We Have Science Degrees and We Know What We Are Talking About”

As I wrote in my article on the Extinction Delusion today, “Not one major land mammal
that went extinct in the last 10,000 years was due to climate change. It will be a miracle if the gradual change in climate causes any extinctions at all. Only illegal hunting and habitat destruction threaten endangered species”.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/one-million-species-extinction-is-proof.html

I’ll be honest with you BigB, I didn’t get beyond the first paragraph of you painfully long-winded, logic-free, data free reply. I’d rather spend my time trying to teach my cat differential equations

A brilliant, prolific MIT PhD Japanese climate scientist just published a new book that agrees with what I’ve been writing on my climate science blog for five years.

I wrote a short article about him today:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/climate-scientist-dr-mototaka-nakamuras.html

leonardo
leonardo
Jun 24, 2019 8:44 PM

No one has ever seen climate-change. No one does know what kind of phenomenons are going along with climate change, leave alone 99% of the so-called alarmists. Yet, an overwhelming lot of people do believe the world is endangered by man-made global warming.

No one has ever seen an apocalypse. But we know it is there, out in the dark.
We have the book of Revelations – the priests and ministers and rabbis telling us – and the paintings. And we have the film of Coppola.

Not to forget: we have the Fall, also brought to us by priests and rabbis and ministers. The Fall, which brings us our guilt in a mirror, in whatever and wherever it can mirror.
We have the Fall of Joyce, far better than the Fall in Genesis 3 – but we prefer the removal from paradise.
And, most important: we have the writing on the wall: mene mene tekel upharsin

Oh, by the way, it were the scientists who told us about the big bang: Could have been a different story – for instance the universe like an accordion, not uncommon among astrophysicists.
No one has ever seen a big bang.
But we believe in the big bang.

So, why should we stop believing the old sages, the priests and the new scientists. It’s our nature.
There was no universe. Then God came into being. And the big bang. And paradise. And the Fall. And we murdered the son of God. And we destroyed the earth. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Bill Price
Bill Price
Jun 24, 2019 7:29 PM

Regarding Solar or Milankovitch cycles, the Ice Cores show longer Climate Cycles of 83,000y > , 90,000y > 107,000y >, to 127,000 y,. This doesn’t sound like planetary or solar cycles, but unfortunately 97% of Scientists are so dedicated to the CO2 AGW Hoax, nobody is studying Real Science of Climate Change.

Bill Price
Bill Price
Jun 24, 2019 6:58 PM

just now
Edit

Ice Core Facts prove CO2 forced AGW is a Hoax.
(NOAA officials lied by presenting Ice Core Graph backward to support CO2 AGW. A Crooked Federal Agency is promoting Fake Climate Change Science. )

Ergo selling Carbon Credits is elite Liberal legislative theft.

Kenan Meyer
Kenan Meyer
Jun 23, 2019 12:53 PM

“…. the elimination of co2 and its methane sidekick would be exceedingly beneficial for a healthy planet.”

Is the author kidding?? That would basically mean that almost all life forms were gone from this planet.

Jim Scott
Jim Scott
Jun 23, 2019 1:25 AM

This article is full of errors and good old outright bullshit. For instance the wrong statement that the sun’s radiation and effect on Earths climate has been kept out of calculations. Not true it has been looked at and part of the calculations even before the effect of greenhouse gas of which CO2 is the largest contributer. It’s sad to see that having lost any trust in the Guardian that the Off Guardian persists in pushing the same nonsense as the fossil fuel industry. Do you really believe that thousands of scientists working in their various fields of expertise are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and that somehow the constant rise of the earth’s temperature is fake news? Proffering the various changes over time like the mediaeval warming age that despite lower atmospheric greenhouse gas warmed the climate in Greenland was actually caused by the Earth’s periodical wobble on its axis. This tilted the Earth so that the sun’s rays were more direct on Europe and when the wobble returned the axis to its regular position Greenland was frozen again. At that period of time no one thought to ask the people Australia what effect the oscillation had on the opposite side of the planet or bothered to carry out measurements there.
Just like the USA today, Europe thought it was the centre of the universe. Recently a geophysical “scientist” wrote a letter to the West Australian newspaper claiming that the climate science was wrong because warming was preceding rising CO2 levels, a claim often put out by the fossil fuel industry. His mistake was that he somehow forgot that Australia has its winter when the countries in the northern hemisphere are experiencing summer conditions, and as the northern hemisphere produces most of the CO2 there is a lag time before the gases transfer to the Southern hemisphere. Of course when I checked out the background of this “scientist” he was of course a director of a fossil fuel mining company.
There is a huge mass of disinformation put out by organisations funded by such luminaries as the Koch brothers who spend a fortune employing people who claim to be climate scientists but who are geologists working for mining countries and who are prepared to take the money for providing shonky non peer reviewed misinformation. We have to be careful to ensure that we do not haven’t had the wool pulled over our eyes.
What about the Off Guardian getting actual climate scienctists with peer reviewed work to put the other side of the story and review the cooling claims raised on Off Guardian.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jun 23, 2019 2:38 AM
Reply to  Jim Scott

Great Scott: Jah wobble waffle >>> how about OffG seriously considering how we engineer the weather, FIRST & then start calculating the fuel consumption of each national military, world wide … errr, oh wait, one slight problem: when the U$A M.I.C. cannot even calculate its’ own FUEL CONSUMPTION … fact: let alone any comprehensive carbon footprint, lol, & worse still …

Environmental damages from any military are not included in any official ‘picture’ of falsified Data …

My friend, before SwissAir went bankrupt, (sending their pilots with cash to fill up with Avgas), they had a most remarkable habit of calculating their emissions & carbon footprint only up until their own borders … now, i don’t know whether you are aware of the size of Switzerland, however, at full speed, the faster fighter jets required approximately a minute or two to fly in & Out again, East / West, North / South, who cares:
i think you get my drift !

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Jun 26, 2019 9:40 PM
Reply to  Tim Jenkins

Whatever you are on, please don’t share it, keep it to yourself.

Brian
Brian
Jun 23, 2019 2:49 AM
Reply to  Jim Scott

I’ve studied this since 1991. And the article author Is correct. I at a loss for what information you have received to give you the idea he is incorrect. He is slightly off In his comment about them not including the sun yes they have then stated it was negligible at best which is horse crap. Take a bit common since and think if the sun was negligible why was there climate change far before man? We also have had several periods with more Co2 then we have now where yep temperature didn’t change and we had more foliage. Matter fact we pump Co2 into our greenhouses to make stringer more robust foliage. We are actually short about 5% of what’s needed to help end world hunger. Not to mention we could use an average If 2 degrees warmer temp to increase farm land say in Canada again to help world hunger. He is also correct about Co2 not rising for long after temperature increases. Climate change is natural and its main contributor is the sun. Our science used in this is poor at best. So find the other causes because it isnt Co2 and we have no way to control the sun

Bob Hoye
Bob Hoye
Jun 23, 2019 11:28 PM
Reply to  Brian

Good points.
I’ve been interested in the science of climate since I completed a BSc. in Geophysics in 1962.
Then lecturers would review two theories.
That the history of ice ages was random and depending upon an open Arctic Ocean and a frozen continent.
The other was that it depended upon the amount of heat reaching the Earth and this was periodic.
I’ve watched the data build and it has been impressive.
Ice ages and interglacials are periodic.
And have nothing to do with CO2, which follows the warming trends.
It has been wonderful to watch this work out.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 24, 2019 9:45 PM
Reply to  Jim Scott

Jin Scott sez
“What about the Off Guardian getting actual climate scienctists with peer reviewed work to put the other side of the story and review the cooling claims raised on Off Guardian.”

MY COMMENTS:
Do you mean the government bureaucrats with science degrees who have been making wrong wild guess predictions of a coming climate crisis for over 30 years … while the actual climate gets better and better?

Or are you referring to someone who knows what he or she is talking about, and DOES NOT waste our time trying to predict the future climate, because it (obviously) can not be predicted?

Do you mean government bureaucrats who predict the FUTURE climate will be 100% bad news … ignoring the 300 years of PAST intermittent global warming that was 100% good news?

Our planet has 78 years of experience adding lots of CO2 to the air — only a f o o l would point to those 78 years, from 1940 through 2018, and declare the climate was bad news.

Are you such a f-o-o-l ?

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 25, 2019 1:11 AM
Reply to  Jim Scott

Jim Scott and others,
Clearly, trying to unpick this debate is hard, and lots of people have strong opinions and/or beliefs. I think everyone is in danger of becoming a self-caricature in this particular thread, IMO, and perhaps we should all take a deep breath before we continue?

Question: Jim Scott, what is the use in shrilly demanding others produce peer-reviewed science, while providing none yourself? Are you simply banging your head against a wall? Or is the burden of proof solely on the part of ‘skeptics’?

By all means do post a link to http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki

However, I must say, that’s about the only link I’ve seen posted for a pro-AGW stance, and I can guarantee you people will have a rebuttal already in mind for most of the material on there.

Whereas, and in all fairness, Richard Greene has been posting a lot of links to back up his position. Here’s one he posted below – data collected about ocean levels: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750

This link seems to show rising ocean levels of

2.85 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

gathered since 1855 from “The Battery, New York”.

This doesn’t seem to fit in with the AGW scheme of things, does it? DO you have any comment on that, and can you provide any alternative links to support your position, Jim Scott?

If so, please post away! Unfortunately much of the pro-AGW posters seem to be relying on bluster, and appeals to consensus/anecdote, and vague deference to all-knowing ‘scientists’.

I must add, to independently-minded, well-read people this can easily appear more like blind faith and an appeal to scripture than the ‘hard science’ you seem to espouse.

Really interested in your response.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 28, 2019 11:12 PM
Reply to  Gardenfiend

Here is my full list of some tide gauges with long term records– non of them show any acceleration of sea level rise that could be blamed on global warming — if there is no acceleration of sea level rise, the measurements of surface warming are suspect:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9410170

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8726520

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8452660

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9447130

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8771450

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8670870

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8665530

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8461490

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8443970

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8638610

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8418150

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8534720

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=2695540

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1619910

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1820000

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 29, 2019 10:09 PM
Reply to  Gardenfiend

Forget my long list of tide gauge URLs — I wrote an article today showing all 10 tide gauge
charts on one page, so you don’t have to click on more than one link:

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/tide-gauges-with-long-term-records-no.html

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 29, 2019 10:14 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene

Thanks!

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jun 23, 2019 12:22 AM

Rights = Responsibility !

Work it out !

Should I decide to work for a corporation that determines the weather over your garden,

and then profit from your need to purchase food from my ‘good’ self,

AM I CULPABLE ! ?

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jun 23, 2019 12:52 AM
Reply to  Tim Jenkins

Incidentally, I fully appreciate that plasma physics is not everybody’s cup of tea, however, the rudiments and what we have been doing for ages, legally speaking, should interest us all, since the first explosion of nuclear bombs in the upper atmosphere and the creation of

ARTIFICIAL ionospheric mirrors …

Search Bernard Eastlund 😉 and think about how the U$A D.o.D considered his patents and their potential, back in 1991, let alone B.P. 😉 and ARCO oil & gas…

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a333462.pdf

There is so much available, on this patented science, take yer’ pick …

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/HAARP_Bernard_J_Eastlund_Patents.html

And it should not surprise you that HAARP is no longer the legal liability of the U$A D.o.D, after WTC7 especially !

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Jun 26, 2019 9:44 PM
Reply to  Tim Jenkins

Some people choose to live in an alternative, fictional reality, but then there are some who have no choice and are stuck there for ever, like yourself.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Jun 26, 2019 9:42 PM
Reply to  Tim Jenkins

Am I culpable?

No, it’s a lot worse that that.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Jun 22, 2019 5:36 PM

Everyone can have an opinion. The whole internet is full of opinions.

Fortunately, some people spend their entire lives in science learning and researching. They focus on specific areas.

People who cannot understand what these highly educated and dedicated people are doing, or who don’t care about their work, resort to producing their own theories in order to satisfy their own curiosity and ego. This article falls into the latter category and it is very amateurish to say the least, I was way too generous giving it 3/10 below…

Question This
Question This
Jun 22, 2019 8:13 PM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

I have to say i got my feet on both sides of the fence.

On the one hand (or foot) i rather blindly accept the climate science side, because i’m not qualified (& probably to lazy) to fully understand it.

On the other my skepticism grows each day with my hatred for neo-liberal ideology.

But judging the other environmental aspects which i’m more qualified & comfortable with i think a cautionary approach to AGW is warranted. We should be doing more to mitigate against the adverse effects of climate change & its not all about plant food, sunburn & not walking so far to the beach in the future.

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 23, 2019 1:52 AM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

How fortunate that you’re here to sort this out for us.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Jun 22, 2019 5:30 PM

Poorly written, poor logic, must try better.
3/10.

Headlice
Headlice
Jun 22, 2019 2:42 PM
Question This
Question This
Jun 22, 2019 2:36 PM

As with all neo-liberal propaganda there’s always a slither of truth in their lies. Often the issues are with their omissions, unfortunately liberals aren’t the only hypocrites that twist fact into fictions.

Global warming is caused but natural processes, it just so happens that human activity effects the environment because nothing on this planet exists in a vacuum, we are all part of the nature of this planets ecology!

Question This
Question This
Jun 22, 2019 3:10 PM
Reply to  Question This

*Sliver not slither, please excuse the parapraxis, liberals are very snake like.

Savorywill
Savorywill
Jun 22, 2019 1:43 PM

Very refreshing to see this post. I got in terrible trouble for comments with critical views of the whole AGW narrative here before. As I mentioned back then, I first was alerted to something amiss from Alexander Cockburn on Counterpunch, for which he got in terrible trouble with St. Clair and other staunch ideologues on that site. Alexander sadly passed away, and Counterpunch sank into oblivion, just a milder version of MSM, with the same Trump hating diatribes/Russia collusion nonsense parroted day in and day out.

If any readers want to wade through her thick accent (bit hard to follow sometimes), Professor Valentina Zharkova explains here why solar activity is more likely the cause of climate change, even accounting for the Little Ice Age, which is not explainable by factoring in human use of fossil fuels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jun 22, 2019 7:12 PM
Reply to  Savorywill

I first was alerted to something amiss from Alexander Cockburn on Counterpunch, for which he got in terrible trouble with St. Clair and other staunch ideologues on that site.

I remember that piece by Cockburn. (I think it was this one: https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/28/is-global-warming-a-sin/) Even though I was still identifying with the AGW position back then, I had to give Cockburn at least a little bit of moral credit for being brave enough to go his own way on the issue–despite all the invective hurled at him by less tolerant lefties. And I learned to respect CounterPunch as a website that allowed and encouraged real diversity of opinion and vigorous debate.

I wish Cockburn were still alive. CounterPunch was a vastly better website when he ran it.

Jim Scott
Jim Scott
Jun 23, 2019 1:34 AM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

I used to be a supporter of Counterpunch and of Cockburn until he started pushing the fake unreviewed pseudo science produced by the fossil fuel industry. Climate change is an existential threat that will wipe us out if we continue with piss weak excuses for inaction.

Savorywill
Savorywill
Jun 23, 2019 10:31 AM
Reply to  Jim Scott

Your response is undoubtedly why he was sort of sidelined after this aberrant questioning of the whole AGW narrative. It went against party-line thinking and wasn’t good for business, I suspect. These online journals do need financial support and you don’t get that if the articles put readers offside, as with what happened to you.

Savorywill
Savorywill
Jun 23, 2019 11:20 AM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

Did you also read the exchanges Cockburn had with George Monbiot (I call him George ‘Monbidiot’ – after his declaration after the Fukushima nuclear accident, before it got so much worse, was proof that nuclear power was the solution to combat CO2 caused global warming!)? They were hilarious. As Cockburn was quite a well respected left-wing journalist, Monbidiot was certainly taken aback by his heresy and his exchanges with Cockburn were classic. I actually can’t find them on the Counterpunch archives – they may have been deleted as they were so controversial.

Admin1
Admin
Admin1
Jun 23, 2019 12:49 PM
Reply to  Savorywill

This would be an interesting read if it could be tracked down.

Anyone know where this Monbiot/Cockburn discussion can be found?

Savorywill
Savorywill
Jun 23, 2019 1:19 PM
Reply to  Admin1

This is an article I found from the final say from Monbiot on the controversy. Of course, he tried to end the discussion there, and even has links to the exchange with Cockburn, which you would expect would still be on the Counterpunch archives. But, St. Clair had them deleted, to be expected. AGW is definitely not be challenged in the acceptable ideologies on that website, for sure.

I see that this debate between the two was in 2007. I remember being very surprised as AGW was standard fare for enlightened people at that time, which I considered myself to be.

https://www.monbiot.com/2007/06/12/the-conspiracy-widens/

Savorywill
Savorywill
Jun 23, 2019 2:20 PM
Reply to  Savorywill

Amazing how Cockburn’s articles have been sent down the memory hole. If you search, you can find references to them, but the articles in their entirety. I did find this quote, though: It is a tribute to the scientific ignorance of politicians and journalists that they keep regurgitating the nonsense about human-caused global warming,” veteran left-wing commentator and Nation magazine columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote. “The greenhouse fear mongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind’s sinful contribution – and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism, and greed.”

Yarkob
Yarkob
Jun 24, 2019 12:34 PM
Reply to  Savorywill

if you know when it appeared the waybackmachine will have it

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 26, 2019 3:55 PM
Reply to  Yarkob

Might have it (in this case does). They honour justified takedown requests.

Headlice
Headlice
Jun 22, 2019 8:41 AM

https://www.rt.com/usa/462437-amazon-patents-surveillance-delivery-drones/

Are you ready for passover.? Got the right stuff to mark your front door with do you.? I guess once they can get 10 or 20 million of these things zipping around everwhere a day may come when they decide te decimate some unwanted populations.

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 7:20 AM

This article is disinformation. Renee Parsons is entitled to an alternative opinion, but not alternative facts. It is simply not true to say that temperatures have remained flat over the past fifteen years. The four warmest years on record have been 2016. 2017, 2015 and 2018 (in that order).

Steve
Steve
Jun 22, 2019 8:14 AM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

More like twenty actually. The ‘record’ you speak of only goes back not much more than a century, is still questionable and was even moreso the further back you go, and the claims of ‘warmest’ are within margin of error based on imperfect and contested data.

The ice core data are not disinformation or alternative facts. They clearly contradict aspects of the ‘standard’ theory, especially in its ‘popular’ form.

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 8:46 AM
Reply to  Steve

The ice core data do not contradict what you quaintly call the standard theory.

Ms Parsons’ alternative facts were to state that temepratures have remained flat. That is not true. She is building a lie on an old meme about 1997/8 being a record hot year, which it was. That was because it was a year during which an extremely powerful El Nino manifested itself. During an El Nino a lot of ocean heat is released to the atmosphere. The last four years were hotter than 1997/8.

Parsons also shows herself to be ignorant by stating that climate has always changed. Yes, but when it changes in the way it is doing right now (much faster than during the end Permian mass extinction of 252Mya), you get extinction events. She is also unaware that solar output during the carboniferous was lower than it is now, and that the arrangement of the continents on the surface of the earth also plays a part in climate.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 4:51 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

Tsar Nicholas
I can see why you don’t use your real name.

You are clueless on the subject of climate science.

The global climate has changed very little since 185o, and has been unusually pleasant,
except for the past winter in the US, which was unusually cold.

There has been mild intermittent global warming since roughly 1700 — it has been 100% good news all the way.

The climate scaremongers, like yourself, believe in a FUTURE global warming that will be 100% bad news, completely unlike PAST global warming, which was 100% good news.

No one with sense takes scary, wild guess predictions of the future climate, consistently wrong for the past 30 years, seriously.

But you do.

That’s why I stated earlier that you were clueless on the subject of climate science.

Wild guess, always wrong, predictions of the future climate, are NOT real science,
even if the people involved have science degrees.

But climate scaremongering is based entirely on those wild guess, always wrong, computer game predictions !

daninbluemd
daninbluemd
Jun 23, 2019 1:43 AM
Reply to  Richard Greene

@ Richard Greene: Thanks for the info & I’ll check out your blog. I don’t mean to oversimplify all this in light of the actual science and I’m admittedly a somewhat casual observer, but if you’d be inclined to, please comment on the following points:

1) We know, by their own admissions in the UK, US, and Australia (others?), that the temp. data is being manipulated (adjusted) and it seems (?) to always be adjusted up (?). What impact has that had on the published data being cited?
2) It seems to me that if CO2 is a problem, that the one thing that could be implemented almost immediately that would have the greatest impact would be to stop the cutting down of the Rainforests. I haven’t done the math, but it has to be a real #.
3) I did a quick calculation once and IIRC, Yellowstone itself is responsible for .5% (been a while, may have been .05 – As one of my engineering professors used to say, a decimal point is the difference between the bridge falling down or not) of daily worldwide CO2 emissions which leads me to think that natural CO2 emissions are significant and probably vary over time and that a significant amount of CO2 is emitted with eruptions and possibly even with earthquakes.
4) Somewhat related to above, I recall a couple years ago, an article about a massive pool of liquid CO2 under the western part of the US. True? If so, wouldn’t it also be slowly escaping?
5) I haven’t looked at the math on this, but it would also seem to me that the undersea volcanoes & vents (& again earthquakes) release significant heat & CO2 into the oceans and that would again vary over time, but we’ve seemingly had a rather active “ring of fire” over the past decade or so and I’d assume what we see above the sea level pales in comparison to what we don’t see.

daninbluemd
daninbluemd
Jun 23, 2019 2:00 AM
Reply to  daninbluemd

To #5 I should’ve added: Add to that the molten lava that we see pouring into the sea (e.g. Hawaii) and that would seem to have to have some measurable, even if small effect on ocean temperature (?) and if so, are the ocean currents such that that naturally warmed water is flowing to the arctic and causing the ice to melt?

Please pardon my ignorance on any of these questions – I’m trying to fix the world in other ways. These are just thoughts/questions that have come to mind over the years as I think about the issue.

daninbluemd
daninbluemd
Jun 23, 2019 2:48 AM
Reply to  daninbluemd

One more thing (#6): I’ve observed a distinct change in the weather patterns (Mid-Atlantic) over the past few decades. Milder winters (although we obliterated the record for snowfall in 2010 by 25% or so) although I’m very curious to see what effect this period of Solar minimum has on that. More so, we used to have cold fronts that would push through every few days more or less and for the past 10-15 (again, maybe corresponding to the 11 year solar cycle) years the fronts very often get hung up for days and become stationery fronts so rather than a strong line of thunderstorms coming through & ushering in a cooler, less humid air mass and then a build up heat & humidity over the next few days, we get days of ongoing humidity & thunderstorms until the front finally moves (week of 6/16/19 being a perfect example – it wasn’t until the night of 6/20 that the front finally moved). Seemingly the relatively common “Bermuda High” (pressure system) was present all week, and keeping the front from moving, but it seems like we’ve always had them. This is the one thing anecdotally that I’ve been able to cite that’s changed and I’m not necessarily attributing it to CC, let alone AGW but I’d like to see some explanation for this.

m35
m35
Jun 23, 2019 7:56 AM
Reply to  daninbluemd

Although it’s not talked about these days the oil and gas sector vents a huge amount of co2 into the atmosphere when either production testing or developing a prospective oil development. There is always a significant amount of associated gas in any oil reservoir (mainly co2) which is unviable and therefore just burnt off. It’s against the rules in most countries but it’s done anyway and the regulators just turn a blind eye to the practice.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 24, 2019 11:05 PM
Reply to  daninbluemd

daninbluemd

I’ve already added a lot of comments to this thread and don’t want to wear out my welcome, or get banned. I assume this to be a “anti-CO2” forum.
My comments on other “antiCO2” websites and blogs have all been deleted within 24 hours, if even published in the first place.

Consider that a majority of the planet’s surface grid cells have no temperature data, or are missing data (still over 50% TODAY) for which the numbers are wild guessed (aka “infilled”) by government bureaucrats who WANT TO see more global warming ! :

Prior to 1900, there were very few Southern hemisphere measurements.

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/1891-to-1920-land-surface-weather.html

Also too few before 1940 — I don’t take surface data seriously before 1940.

Even today a majority of the 2000+ surface grids cells have wild guessed infilling for the entire grid cell or for one of more of the weather station with missing data:

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/for-land-areas-on-chart-
gray-signifies.html

Over 60% infilling even in the US !

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-us-surface-temperature-record-ushcn.html

The repeated “adjustments” to historical temperature records are a disgrace.

Here are some examples I’ve published (this one just a few hours ago):

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/land-only-temperatures-
where-people.html

Here are some more: Even if the measurements were prefect … the after the fact adjustments destroy the integrity of the data:

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/in-1987-nasa-giss-claimed-05-degrees.html

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/nasa-giss-january-1910-versus-january.html

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/look-at-huge-adjustments-to-raw-data-us.html

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/past-temperatures-keep-changing-history.html

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/compare-rss-satellite-data-in-2016-vs.html

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/darwin-australia-temperature.html

daninbluemd
daninbluemd
Jun 25, 2019 5:52 AM
Reply to  Richard Greene

@Richard Greene: Thx – I get it, esp. from ppl who think climate deniers should be jailed & based on the downvotes on my posts you’re correct. I see you’ve added more posts and will go back and read them. Would love to hear your view on my other points, even if not in here, but regardless will check out your blog.

My kids are in middle school so you can imagine the indoctrination they’re receiving (and have been since kindergarten). I’ve been providing them with “anti-Indoctrination” information since kindergarten so they’re grounded, but unfortunately, apparently I’m the only parent that does. They are shunned if they even broach the subject with peers. The schools are overwhelmingly winning this war of information.

Jim Scott
Jim Scott
Jun 23, 2019 5:16 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene

The trouble with your critique is that you are factually wrong. The predictions have been remarkably accurate and the many predictions by actual scientists as opposed to radio jocks and fossil fuel foundations, are remarkably consistent. This is despite the thousands of factors that must be considered as an interacting with. You are clearly another person who reads non peer reviewed disinformation pumped out by the Koch brothers and their mining geologists shills.

Admin
Admin
Jun 23, 2019 8:31 PM
Reply to  Jim Scott

Since we know the PTB are backing BOTH sides of this debate, we should probably agree not to use generic claims of corruption to dismiss arguments. Unless corruption is provable in a given case it should probably not be introduced.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 24, 2019 10:24 PM
Reply to  Jim Scott

The average climate model, excluding the Russian model that seems accurate, predicts about +3 degrees warming per CO2 doubling.

Even if you data mine, and start the count from 1979 (ignoring the lack of warming from 1940 to 1975 WHILE lots of CO2 was added to the atmosphere, the ACTUAL warming rate is about +1 degree C. per CO2 doubling, not +3 degrees C.

At the link below are some charts comparing climate models with UAH satellite data and weather balloon data, from 1979 through 2015.

The charts end in 2015, which was a warm year from a large EL Nino, but even with that warming in the actuals, the computer games are still way off the mark:

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/climate-models-computer-games-versus.html

The computer games look much worse when backtested to include 1940 through 1975.

I am factually right and you are clueless, living in a climate fantasyland where you believe your own “alternative facts”.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 24, 2019 10:14 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

Tsar Nicholas, blathering as usual:

Tsar sez:
“Parsons also shows herself to be ignorant by stating that climate has always changed.”

MY COMMENT:
Earth’s climate HAS always changed — YOU are ignorant for not knowing that !
.
.
.
Tsar sez:
“Yes, but when it changes in the way it is doing right now (much faster than during
the end Permian mass extinction of 252Mya), you get extinction events.”

MY COMMENT:
Humans have been adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere since 1940. If that CO2 causes any warming, which is an assumption, not a scientific fact, no one knows how much.

There was +0.6 degrees C. of intermittent net warming since 1940, through 2018. That is equivalent to less than +0.8 degrees warming in a century = totally harmless at worst — beneficial based on real science.

Take your extinction scaremongering and stuff it back in the computer game that invented it — more leftists nonsense !

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 24, 2019 10:24 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene

Non human vertebrates declined around the globe by an average 40% between 1970 and 2018; Arctic Ocean phytoplankton declined by 90% between 1960 and 2010; flying insects in germany declined by 76% between 1989 and 2016. Ground insects in a Puerto Rico rainforest declined 98% over a similar time frame.

The global average temperature between the end of the last ice age and the beginning of the Holocene was about one-and-a-half degrees Celsius. Global average temperature pre-industrial was around 14 C, so a 1C rise is enormous. You, your children, your grandchildren, all of your family are going to die, and much quicker than you can grasp.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 24, 2019 10:40 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

There goes crazy Czar Nicholas again, in his leftist imaginary fantasyland:

” .. all of your family are going to die, and much quicker than you can grasp.”

GETTING BACK TO REALITY:
The climate on our planet is better than it has ever been, for humans and animals, in at least 300 years.

During the Little ice Age, in the late 1600s the temperature in Central England (no real time temperature data available from elsewhere) was -3 degrees C. colder than it is now … and the people who live there are thrilled the Little Ice Age is history.

The warming since 1975 has been mainly in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, during the coldest six months of the year, and at night.

The biggest change from global warming after 1975, could be described as “warmer winter nights in Alaska” = good news for the few people who live in Alaska.

Your coming climate change fantasy has nothing to do with real science.

Past global warming was 100% good news.

Your fantasies of future global warming are 100% bad news.

There is no logical reason to make such a wild prediction.

WE HAVE ALREADY HAD 78 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH RISING CO2 LEVELS AND RISING TEMPERATURES, FROM 1940 TO 2018.

Even if you assume CO2 caused all the warming, with no scientific proof CO2 caused any of the warming (even the UN’s IPCC says “over half”, not 100%), the +0.6 degree C. of net warming since 1940 harmed no one … except perhaps in overactive leftist imaginations.

Steve
Steve
Jun 26, 2019 1:32 AM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

The ice core data clearly show rises in CO2 following temp increases by big lags not vice-versa.

Temps have been pretty flat since the 90’s, rises are rather modest at best, and depend on taking the assessments thereof at face value, which is of doubtful credibility. There are big documented problems with the measurements and averaging themselves.

Parsons can speak for herself, she’s not my concern.

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 26, 2019 3:04 AM
Reply to  Steve

For that proprtion of the time that climate cycles have been governed by Milankovic Cycles, a small increase in solar insolation has warmed the earth. This slight warming has caused carbon dioxide to come out of solution in the oceans and amplify the warming so that it is in accord with the amount that we see. So, your “lagging” argument is at best borne out of amisunderstanding; at worst a wilful misrepresentation of the science.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jun 23, 2019 1:56 AM
Reply to  Steve

S.T.E.V.E. = Strong Thermal Emissions Velocity Enhancement . . .

sorry m8, don’t blame me for that description, blame NASA & datsa’ FACT !

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/30/steve-aurora-mystery-of-the-night-sky-weatherwatch

“Donovan investigated the phenomenon himself, matching pictures taken from the ground with readings from the European Space Agency’s Swarm satellites, which have sensitive instruments to measure Earth’s magnetic field.

One satellite flew through Steve, and the agency’s readings indicated an encounter with a ribbon of charged gas, about 15 miles wide, moving at four miles a second or about 13,420mph.

Steve is hot, around 3,000C (5,400F) hotter than air surrounding it at an altitude of 186 miles. But the satellite remained undamaged.

Steve’s exact cause remains unexplained so far …”

Nothing to worry about there, m8 : that cloud, (that has appeared in both Northern & Southern Hemispheres), means NOTHING! ? & the Guardian released that wee snippet precisely at the moment when Trump was supposed to be attending the Paris Climate Accord, along with a mass of other propaganda, simultaneously, as prerequisite distraction from strong thermal emissions velocity enhancement, because after all …

How could a cloud, that is a mere 3,000º Celsius HOTTER than the surrounding ‘air’, possibly have an effect on JET STREAM CURRENTS, even though it is hot enough to melt the steel in a construction like, let’s say … WTC7 ? !

Do I need to convert 186 miles into Kilometres for us all to clearly comprehend ?

One would think that ALARM bells would signal worldwide …

Were it not for our ‘pretty’ friendly purple streaker 😉

Jeeeez, if only i were making this sh8t up … !

Bob Hoye
Bob Hoye
Jun 22, 2019 1:47 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

The warming over the past 25 years has been mainly due to the El Nino of 1998 and the huge El Nino of 2015=2016. Over the last three years the record (Roy Spencer’s) has been declining. But not yet back to the flat-lying trend of some 20 years.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 4:40 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

Tsar Nicholas
The article contains some useful information and some disinformation.

Unfortunately you have added to the disinformation.

The global average temperature in 2018, based on global data from UAH weather satellites, was about the same as it was in 2002 — no statistically significant difference.

Between 2002 and 2018, there was a huge EL Nino heat release from the Pacific Ocean, not yet offset by La Ninas.

That large heat release was local, temporary and unrelated to CO2 … but it raised the global average temperature in 2015 and 2016.

So a linear temperature trend line from 2002 through 2018 WOULD show a rising trend, but that rise was mainly due to the late 2015 /early 2016 El Nino, not CO2.
.
.
.
“Warmest years on record” is a near meaningless statement — you don’t understand why, but I will explain:

(1)
Real time global average temperature compilations started in 1880, a few decades after a warming trend started.

For now let’s ignore the fact that there were very few Southern Hemisphere measurements in the data before World War II.

(2)
Based on Vostok, Antarctica ice core studies, our planet has mild temperature cycles lasting hundreds of years.

(3)
A warming period that started in roughly 1700 is part of a warming / cooling cycle — there is no evidence that any past warming cycle was not later reversed by a cooling cycle.

(4)
As a result of global average compilations starting in 1880, it is EXPECTED that there will be many “warmest years on record” until that warming cycle ends, and a cooling cycle begins.

Therefore, the claim of “warmest year on record” is almost meaningless.
.
.
.
A more accurate picture is to observe what has actually happened since 1940, 78 years ago, when humans began adding a lot of CO2 to the air, after the Great Depression ended.

Through the end of 2018, the global average temperature was up only +0.6 degrees C., equivalent to global warming of less than 0.8 degrees C. in a century = harmless warming.

There is no logical reason to assume the next 78 years will have more warming than the past 78 years.
(and that’s based on a worst case estimate that CO2 caused ALL of the warming in the past 78 years — the UN’s IPCC actually guesses humans caused “over half” the warming since 1950, not all the warming since 1940.

Meanwhile, the average climate model (excluding one apparently accurate Russian model) predicts a future warming rate from CO2, that is quadruple the actual rate of warming in the past 78 years.

In my opinion, and I have been reading climate science articles and studies as a hobby since 1997, the predictions of a much higher future global warming rates are science fraud.

In the past 30+ years, the climate models have proven to be nothing more than computer games, that make consistently wrong climate predictions.

They are generally based on a CO2 theory from the 1970s, that is obviously wrong, but is never changed !

In real science, wrong predictions falsify a theory and model.

In government-financed climate modeling, it appears that wrong predictions don’t matter

… but when wrong predictions don’t matter, that’s junk science, not real science!

For further information,
see my climate science blog,
with over 37.500 page views:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 4:50 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene

Too many points to cover, so I will just focus on one – what you say on models

You need to forget about models and look at actual measurments. Arctic sea ice has been declining in thickness since the 1950s when British and American submarines began measuring it. The thickness has carried on decreasing since 1979 and Arctic sea ice volume is now a little over a fifth of what it was forty years ago. Models have generally, if not universally, underestimated the extent and speed of changes. Look at actual measurements. Buy an Arctic ocean sea cruise ticket.

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 22, 2019 5:51 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

…You need to forget about models and [parrot] actual measurments…

“Forget the shoe, follow the gaud”

Are we obliged to have any regard for the past in the slightest? I thought models have been the stock in trade for IPCC predictions since the 7os, haven’t they?

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 6:01 PM
Reply to  Gardenfiend

Models didn’t contradict what climate scientists were warning about; they simply understated the seriousness of the situation. Actual measurments are carried out by and large by researchers on the spot in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The situation is far worse than anyone thought it would be by now.

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 22, 2019 6:58 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

So we can agree that climate modelling science is inaccurate. SO can we have room for questioning it without being silenced by chorus upon chorus of groans from unquestioning AGW believers?

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 9:26 PM
Reply to  Gardenfiend

All models so far have underestimated both the extent and the rate of warming. nobody actually modelled a 98% loss of ground insects in a tropical rainforest in Puerto Rico over a thirty five year period from the 1970s onwards, but it has happened, and it is due to warming. Good luck with growing food without insects.

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 22, 2019 10:29 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

In a complex system, an underestimate is as problematic as an overestimate… it’s not the case that we’ve pinned down the mechanism, and now it’s just a question of degrees – like figuring out how a car accelerator works. It’s an infinitely variable system, which IPCC have admitted is impossible to predict accurately. A computer model which isn’t accurate isn’t scientific.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 9:55 PM
Reply to  Gardenfiend

If the models are inaccurate, then they are NOT science.

Wrong predictions falsify the models, and the theories programmed in.

They are failed prototypes — not real models of any climate change process on this planet.

Jim Scott
Jim Scott
Jun 23, 2019 5:35 PM
Reply to  Gardenfiend

No.

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 23, 2019 9:57 PM
Reply to  Jim Scott

Denial is strong in this one.

Yarkob
Yarkob
Jun 24, 2019 12:40 PM
Reply to  Jim Scott

then what you are doing is not “science” or you never learned how science works. If the debate is “closed” it was never a debate. It was propaganda that we are to just suck up. Like the people who thought the earth was round when the prevailing “scientific consensus” said it was flat? smh

Go away with your “no”

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 26, 2019 10:41 AM
Reply to  Yarkob

Everything is chaotic until it isn’t.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 8:48 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

Models failed miserably when back tested for 1910 to 1040

Models failed miserably when backtested for 1940 to 1975

Models failed to predict a relatively flat trend from 1998 through 2018.

Models, on average, predict FUTURE warming at a rate QUADRUPLE the actual warming rate from 1940 through 2018, of less than +0.8 degrees C. per century.

The failed predictions of the models falsified the 1970’s CO2 theory that predicts +3 degrees C. warming per CO2 doubling — yet the theory never dies, because climate scaremongers like you would never admit to a mistake.

The current climate is wonderful.

It has been getting better for 300+ years.

And you bellowing, arm waving, leftists are not going to ruin the wonderful climate for me !

Jim Scott
Jim Scott
Jun 23, 2019 5:03 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene

What comic book have you got your information from. You are setting up a straw man by making statements on climate predictions that were never made by scientists. The modelling I have seen is remarkably consistent and I’ve never seen predictions like you have described. Can you post your sources because making grandiose claims is only impressive if you provide the peer reviewed evidence based sources to back up your assertions.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 24, 2019 10:05 PM
Reply to  Jim Scott

Jim Scott
When you start your comments with “What comic book” I’m not going to take you seriously !

You appeal to authority is evidence of a weak mind not capable of independent thinking.

My interest is in real climate science, not the leftist climate change scaremongering that you love.

I’ve been reading the subject since 1997 — and have a climate science blog that has had over 37,500 page views.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Hint:
Wrong wild guesses of the future climate are not real science.

Real scientists can not predict the future climate, and don’t try to — they have no idea what percentage of climate change is natural, and what percentage is man made.

They do know, however, that 99.9999% of past climate change was natural, ranging from no ice on both poles to Canada covered with ice..

It is enough work to explain the past (real) climate.

You seem to prefer the junk science of an imaginary future climate where the only news is bad news. How sad.

You can have your fun with your climate crisis fantasies — I know leftists always love to be miserable — I prefer to live in the real world of measurements and observations, not computer games programmed to make scary climate forecasts … that are always wrong.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jun 22, 2019 6:33 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

… Arctic sea ice volume is now a little over a fifth of what it was forty years ago.

But if that’s true, then where has all that water gone? It can’t just vanish without a trace. If the polar icecaps were really melting at such an alarming, shouldn’t sea levels have risen noticeably? Wouldn’t we have lost New York and San Francisco by now? Yet, as far as I’m aware, we still haven’t lost so much as a single Pacific atoll … forty years on!

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 9:29 PM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

Sea ice, by definition was already in the ocean, and the mass of the ice had already displaced the seawater, so sea level rise would not have happened. You only get sea level rise from adding water to the ocean from melting land ice. When the ice cubes in your drink melt, the level of the drink does not increase.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 9:53 PM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

Whoever said Arctic sea ice is now a little more than a fifth of what it was forty years ago is clueless, and just making up a story not even close to being true.

Jim Scott
Jim Scott
Jun 23, 2019 5:28 PM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

The sea level is rising but not at a very fast rate as yet because the Arctic ice is already floating in the sea. The very fast increases will come as land based ice melts and runs into the sea. The main sources are found in the Antarctic which is mostly on land, Greenland again on land, and many Glaciers including those in the Himalayas. It is estimated that as this ice melts and snowfall is reduced 200 million Indian people will have no drinking water. Some sea level rise is being caused by expansion as when the sea water warms up it expands.

Yarkob
Yarkob
Jun 24, 2019 12:36 PM
Reply to  Editor

in many cases they can’t, because they are working from “predictive” models that have been fed with bullshit data a la NOAA “falsifying” the sea tempo data by missing loads of it out

Shit in; shit out

Good King
Good King
Jun 22, 2019 8:31 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

So, by your logic, the flooding of the Black Sea human settlements on Northern Turkey 8,000 years ago when the Bosphorus natural dam was broken by the raising levels of the Mediterranean Sea was also due to the increasing levels of CO2 .

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 9:20 PM
Reply to  Good King

Sea level has continued to rise since the end of the last ice age. Ice and water don’t respond instanteously to heating.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 9:51 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

And looking at long term records of tide gauges mounted on firm bedrock with minimal subsidence, such as the Manhattan Battery tide gauge, there is NO sign of any acceleration of sea level rise that could be blamed on global warming.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 8:42 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

I pointed out the Arctic sea ice extent has been in a flat trend for the past 13 years — that will cut down on the number of cruise ships.

It’s true the Arctic has had the most warming of any area on earth — cause unknown — but mainly in the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night = good news for the few people who live there.

Antarctica has not had no net melting since 1980, and the only melting there was on the edges of the glacier near underseas volcanoes = a warming pattern that could not have been caused by CO2.

Greenhouse gas theory says polar areas should have the greatest warming — that is
not true for Antarctica.

Climate computer games (models) have grossly overestimated actual global warming — the ONLY portion of the planet for which they may seem reasonable. would be the Arctic, with the most warming — but that is far from being the whole planet.

And of course the melting of floating ice does not raise the sea level.

If you believe the global circulation models, as a group, have been accurate, then you remain clueless about climate science.

One Chinese climate model seems accurate, but that could be a coincidence, with so many models, one is bound to seem right by chance.
.

axisofoil
axisofoil
Jun 22, 2019 5:21 AM
Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 7:23 AM
Reply to  axisofoil

You cannot point to a single peer reviewed paper in the scientific journal literature from the 1970s that predicts another ice age. The heat trapping effects of carbon dioxide have been known about since the mid 1800s.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 4:58 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

Tsar:
The heat trapping effects of CO2 are ONLY known in a laboratory, using closed system, water vapor free air, for infrared spectroscopy experiments.

The effect of CO2 in the real ,water vapor filled, atmosphere, is unknown.

The UN’s IPCC actually admitted that in 2001:

“14.2.2
Predictability in a Chaotic System”

The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner.

These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system.

As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously
noted, “future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict.

This implies that future climate changes may also involve ‘surprises’.

In particular, these arise from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the climate system.”

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 9:36 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene

The non-linear chaotic nature of the increase in temperatures mean that increase will be exponential. Things will get worse much faster than you think. An example would be loss of Arctic sea ice, so that instead of 95% of sunlight being reflected back into space, 95% of it will be absorbed by the earth system. You get a self-reinforcing feedback. The hotter it gets, the faster it gets hotter. Warmer oceans mean a release of methane trapped at shallow depths, another positive feedback given thta CH4 has a greenhouse warming potential many times that of carbon dioxide.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 10:06 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

You are clueless beyond belief, Tsar Nicholas.

There is no evidence in climate history of any permanent change in estimated average temperature of over (roughly) plus or minus one degree C. in a century.

There have been some temporary heat spikes, that reversed, and cold periods from volcanoes, that ended, but your mistaken belief in runaway global warming is a belief for fools.

As I explained in an earlier comment, our planet has had more CO2 in the air than today for most of it’s 4.5 billion year existence.

The highest CO2 level is believed to be at least 10 times higher than today.

There is absolutely no evidence that higher CO2 levels — much higher than today — ever caused runaway warming, which would have ended life on this planet.

You dismissal of all known climate history, assuming you know anything on that subject, and your belief in a coming climate catastrophe, that does not resemble any past climate, is a religion, not real science.

I suppose Al “The Climate Blimp” Gore is your “pope”.?

And the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is your “bible”?

Or do you prefer Alexandria Occasionally Coherent’s “Green Ordeal” ?

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 23, 2019 5:19 AM
Reply to  Richard Greene

“The heat trapping effects of CO2 are ONLY known in a laboratory, using closed system, water vapor free air, for infrared spectroscopy experiments.

The effect of CO2 in the real ,water vapor filled, atmosphere, is unknown.”

When did you fall asleep? 1776?

Admin1
Admin
Admin1
Jun 23, 2019 9:03 AM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

It might be better to link to a source that refutes this claim than simply rely on sarcasm.

Same goes for anyone else on either side. Science requires data for refutation/assertion. Let’s try to keep focused on that.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 24, 2019 11:07 PM
Reply to  Admin1

Are you trying to ruin our fun Admin ?

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 26, 2019 3:03 AM
Reply to  Richard Greene

Gotcha… self.

Eight little throwaway words assembled into an almost involuntary triumphal bark and you’re nailed. By yourself!

Will they dock your pay? Or will I be worse than that? A few decades ago I would have employed you. We needed a good MBA in our BS department.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 27, 2019 10:01 PM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Robbobobbin
I barely understand your semi-coherent rants.

No one is docking my pay — I retired in January 2005 at age 51.

Retirement beats working.

I’m not surprised that you were the stupidvisor of the BS department, judging by your logical fallacies and misuse of the English language!

There is no way to know what effect CO2 has in the troposphere since every change in the climate during the past few hundred years could have had 100% natural causes.

In fact every climate change over 4.5 billion years did have natural causes.

It’s your job to prove that natural causes of climate change have stopped, and CO2 took over, in spite of little evidence that is true.

The effects on infrared energy in a closed system, water vapor free, laboratory infrared spectroscopy experiment does not reveal the actual effect CO2 has in the atmosphere.

It merely suggests mild, harmless warming is likely.

We have had mild, harmless warming since 1940, but that does not prove CO2 was the cause of any of it.

The warming was intermittent, mainly at high (cold) latitudes, mainly in the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night.

Antarctica had no global warming since 1980.

In fact, there were more decades with no warming after 1940, than there were decades with global warming — not what anyone would expect if natural causes of climate change were “bumped off” in the 20th century, and CO2 became THE NEW BOSS.

Enjoy your time in the leftist climate change fantasy land — but don’t try to run my life with your scary, always wrong, computer game climate change fairy tales

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 26, 2019 2:04 AM
Reply to  Admin1

“It might be better to link to a source that refutes this claim than simply rely on sarcasm.”

OK.

The heat trapping effects of CO2 are ONLY known in a laboratory, using closed system, water vapor free air, for infrared spectroscopy experiments.

The effect of CO2 in the real ,water vapor filled, atmosphere, is unknown. [Emphasis mine]

Hmmmm. That’s a very specific, eminently testable, time and task-limited assertion.

So: says who?
Oh! No who quoted, linked or cited!

But wait! There’s more!

The UN’s IPCC actually admitted that in 2001:

“14.2.2
Predictability in a Chaotic System”

The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner.

These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system.

As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously noted, “future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict.

This implies that future climate changes may also involve ‘surprises’.

In particular, these arise from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the climate system.”

Well, whether they’re “admitting” it or not, what they’re saying is that, however input data is generated–in a lab, in the field, from a theoretical model–then, in analyses of the output, interpolation is usually but not always “safe” but extrapolation is often and in some cases always “risky” (because that’s just how things are) and extrapolating climate data currently falls into the very risky category. What a surprise!

You could call Section 14.2.2 a circumspect authors’ “Executive Summary” of the nature of things in light of the anticipated ignorance of their pooh-bah commissioners. And, contrary to the express claim of your favourite (?) MBAed BS, it does not “say” or “admit” anything about the nature of the input data, whether derived from idealized lab or actual field experiment. It simply does not address that factor. You don’t need a link to see that, it’s right there in front of you in black on white, in what is known as the “English language”.

The MBAed BS’s supporting evidence for his otherwise unsupported claim that “The heat trapping effects of CO2 are ONLY known in a laboratory, using closed system, water vapor free air, for infrared spectroscopy experiments” and hence “The effect of CO2 in the real ,water vapor filled, atmosphere, is unknown.” is not, even in the slightest way, related to it.

Better yet, his claim, dated 22 June 2019, is just plain wrong and getting wronger by ths day. In that regard, even the 2001-dated IPCC report he adduces as support (science-wise, cough) as is ironic. Now that counter-claim of mine and the accompanying somewhat spurious comment, at least for those ignorant of climatology as she is advanced, could probably do with a link, reference, citation, expansion, whatever, like Science like.

But finally I must sincerely apologise for the quite inadvertent sarcasm of which you rightly complain. No, really. I was aiming for derision.

axisofoil
axisofoil
Jun 23, 2019 1:18 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

It is quite possible that the apparatus of comprehension with which we have been supplied may have been intended for a GI Joe. Could this mean creation was an inside job?

Question This
Question This
Jun 22, 2019 1:47 PM
Reply to  axisofoil

As I remember it all the alarmist claims of a new glacial maximum came from rather ignorant academics in schools & colleges even up to early 2000s I noted a college lecturer still quoting this nonsense. Based it seemed almost entirely on the fact their were several glacial periods approx 10000-12000 years apart, therefore the theory was we were due another.

That said I fully embrace the science that anthropocentric global warming is fact, i am skeptical of the politics behind it being pushed so feverishly. The truth is climate change isn’t a proven fact because it hasn’t happened yet therefore we can only hypothesized.

As i always like to point out no matter how in/accurate global warming predictions turn out to be. Global warming is the least of our concerns because the degradation of biodiversity is the greatest threat we face & climate change no matter how small, creating abrupt weather patterns will cause species extinctions. The only answer other species have to climate change is migration & other species have no where else to go due to man made habitat destruction.

It seems obvious to me even liberals pushing anthropocentric global warming don’t really believe their own propaganda, because their solutions are irrational & as always suffering cognitive dissonance with the lunatic beliefs changing oil to electric energy will save the planet.

axisofoil
axisofoil
Jun 23, 2019 1:11 PM
Reply to  Question This

Don’t forget the degradation of human consciousness.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 22, 2019 5:08 AM

As a one-time card thumping member of the American Civil Liberties Union and long time political operative in both established and semi-radical milieu, Renee Parsons has earned a soundly based right to cherry pick and promulgate both professional and lay opinions on climatology, quantum physics, endocrinology, bacteriology, scientology, phrenology and etceterology whenever, wherever, and however loudly and often she likes.

Bob Hoye
Bob Hoye
Jun 22, 2019 4:11 AM

The essay covers the right stuff and I was envious that I had not taken the time to write a similar summary of the real physics of real climate change.
Then–wham–the last two paragraphs are boiler-plate authoritarian science.
Two previous such outbreaks had the the Solar System revolving around the Earth. More precisely, around the Vatican. Fortunately physics began a renaissance in the early 1600s. It was part of a great reformation of authoritarian bureaucracy
‘Then there was Lysenkoism in Communist Russia, that while it helped murder millions, state powers would not let it be questioned.
And now there has been yet another promotion of authoritarian science.
And for the same reason–the imposition of power.
That a committee can set the temperature of the nearest planet is astounding audacity.

Headlice
Headlice
Jun 22, 2019 4:08 AM

The carbon dollar comes. Your assets ie your house will be counted as a luability. The imbedded carbon in its structure and civic maintenance in terms of carbon will make you wish you hadnt bought that second house.

No man shall buy or sell save he who hath the mark of the beast

No man shall buy or sell save he who hath the signifier of all life…carbon

Funny how moderns assert the gospell of John and the book of revelations are not by the one hand when one considers that the 153 fish episode and 666 definately point to Pythagoras.

153 is the sum of a minor Pythagorean triangle

666 is the sum of another Pythagorean triangle

And Gore means:

A triangle

The blood and viscera of murder

A horn

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jun 21, 2019 11:30 PM

Thanks for publishing this, Off-G. I myself have moved into the skeptic column on GW over the last few years, and I find the tone of much of the establishment ‘left’ on this issue nowadays so very shrill.

For years (decades, actually) I accepted the GW theory matter-of-factly and without any push-back. Mostly, this was because:

A.) I am basically a socialist, so I had no trouble believing that the same greedy, globalist corporations that pollute our rivers and air might also be ruining the environment in even more profound ways;

B.) I am generally an environmentalist myself, opposed to pollution, in favor of renewables and conservation-friendly;

C.) I have no background in climatology at all, and therefore didn’t feel myself qualified to object to what the MSM were (and still are) describing as a ‘near-total consensus among the experts’.

And so, thirty years ago, when the media were telling us all about how we had at most! fifteen years left before the polar icecaps melted and oceans levels rose, swallowing up New York, Amsterdam and Bangladesh beneath the waves forever, I took them seriously for a long time …but not anymore.

Though I am still no expert on GW, I have become increasingly aware through the years of how our media misrepresent, distort, and sometimes just plain lie about a number of issues, ranging from foreign policy to economics and certain other subjects where I do feel confident enough to have a real, informed opinion. Bottom line: I no longer trust the media on any issue of importance, unless I can confirm what they report some other way. And since my five senses don’t report that anything really catastrophic has been happening with the climate over the past thirty years, and since I don’t know enough about climatology to be able to wade through reams of footnoted white papers on the subject, for now, my official position on GW is one of neutrality.

I think that’s fair. Don’t you?

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 22, 2019 4:37 AM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

You knew jack shit about climatology decades ago and you know jack shit about climatology now but you knew when to wear a plain old sou’wester then and you know how to set a new fangled airco now so that qualified you to make pronouncements on climatology then and it qualifies you to make pronouncements on climatology now? Couldn’t be fairer.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 22, 2019 5:26 AM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Don’t be unfair, Mauricio, what he said–top and tail–was, verbatim, was:

“I myself have moved into the skeptic column on GW over the last few years…” (emphasis added) and “…for now, my official position on GW is one of neutrality” (irony left as was).

And that’s official.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 23, 2019 11:51 PM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Aside to Admin – for the comment entry box developer/s: (1) inline markup elements when used inside inline markup elements seem not to work at all or not to work consistently; (2) where “subroutine” is used in a pseudocode sense: [some of?] the autotag (just above the text box) subroutines seem not to terminate/return properly.

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 7:25 AM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

Go and buy a ticket for an Arctic Ocean sea crusie. You couldn’t do that fifteen years ago, not because of lack of enterprise, but because the sea ice was too thick.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 5:29 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

Tsar Nicholas

You are consistently clueless !

Arctic sea ice extent has had a flat trend for the past 13 years.

See the 12 year chart at the first link, or additional facts, and a newer 13 year chart, in the second half of my article, at the second link below:

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/arctic-sea-ice-in-12-year-uptrend.html

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/china-is-investing-in-arctic-part-2.html

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 6:20 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene

Fraud. I looked at the link embedded in the article below the charts and it took me to page of text, and the text doesn’t bear out what the charts are saying. If you have to lie or misrepresent, then you are on very weak ground indeed. This link contains a chart from the DMI which shows that current trends are below the 2004-13 average. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 9:25 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

There you go again Tsar Nicholas, confused again, and now throwing out character attacks, one after another.

I told you the Arctic sea ice extent had a flat trend for the past 13 years, which would be 2006 to 2019, if you can’t figure it out.

Perhaps you found the DMI data I used, but were unable to convert the data table into a chart — that’s not my fault.

Then you provided a link to a different DMI chart, which happens to show 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016, but not any specific years from 2006 through 2015.

I had told you 2006 through 2019 were similar for Arctic sea ice extent.

I suppose you could have glanced at 2016, 2017 2018 and 2019 on that different DMI chart, to see that all four years were similar ?

Or was that too much trouble ?

And then you would have to find data for the nine individual years from 2006 through 2015, to see that, based on DMI data, my statement of a flat Arctic sea ice extent trend for the last 13 years was correct all along, whether you like it or not.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 24, 2019 11:21 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene

I wrote an article on the subject of the flat Arctic sea ice extent for the past 13 years today, just for non-believers like you, Tsar Nicholas:

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/arctic-ice-stopped-shrinking-13-years.html

Question This
Question This
Jun 22, 2019 2:05 PM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

I have to say i agree almost entirely with you here.

I am a firm advocate of AGW theory, but the political ideology behind it makes me more skeptical every day.

I personally believe AGW is a fact, its the extent of the direct consequences to humanity that i question. That said as a naturalist for most of my adult life, i have noted significant changes in nature & timing of seasons & activity of the natural world the result i’m afraid is very worrying.

It can’t be ignored that unlocking millions of years of carbon deposits & releasing them into the atmosphere over a condensed short period is going to have a impact on our planet. Climate has never been a stable constant & every ecosystem has a function in regulating how the sun interacts with the environment & life on our planet, if you pollute it, its going to have an effect.

We are just to stupid to fully understand the complexity of how much natural processes interact with one another. What is evident relying on technology to resolve these problems will just cause different & most likely more profound problems.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 5:23 PM
Reply to  Question This

Question this:
Consider the fact that burning fossil fuels, preferably with modern pollution controls, is RECYCLING CO2 back into the atmosphere, that was once there … before being sequestered underground, for a long time, as coal, oil and natural gas.

The CO2 level today is near the lowest in the history of our planet — the lowest was believed to be about 20,000 years ago when Canada, Detroit and Chicago were under glaciers.

In the next 10,000 years, those glaciers melted, and there was a warm period, called the Holocene Optimum, a few degrees C. WARMER than today.

Amazing how our planet survived most of it’s 4.5 billion years with MORE CO2 in the air than today — there was never any runaway warming, or none of us would be here to debate global warming.

In fact, the C3 plants that people and animals use for food, evolved in an atmosphere averaging about 1,000 ppm of CO2 — that’s why many greenhouse owners spend their own money on CO2 enrichment systems, and fuel, to create at least 1,000 ppm air inside their greenhouses, to accelerate growth of their plants.

Of course what could greenhouse owners know about plants ?

Some recent studies have found that C4 plants also benefit from CO2 enrichment:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/watts-williams-et-al-2019-positive.html

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/qiao-et-al-2019-elevated-co2-and.html

http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/dong-et-al-2018-elevated-co2-improves.htm

Question This
Question This
Jun 22, 2019 7:45 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene

Errr there’s this little thing called evolution. Most of the species around today weren’t just a few million years ago.

Sorry to burst the bubble but AGW is only relevant too biodiversity in the Pleistocene/Anthropocene!

I have no doubt the planet will recover but extinction is forever & anthropocentric activity is most certainly having an irreversible impact on evolution of most life forms.

Evidently our sun is responsible for warming our planet, however it doesn’t mean our own activity doesn’t make things much worse.

I’d rather put my money on ecologists than gardeners!

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 9:03 PM
Reply to  Question This

You mean the millions of new species invented in a computer program and then predicted to die off in the same computer program?

Where’s the full list of Latin names for all the alleged species that don’t actually exist today, but are allegedly going to die off?

There is no list.

Just more worthless computer games.

The climate on this planet is the best it has been for hundreds of years — if you don’t realize that, then you are clueless about climate history.

Our planet does not have to “recover” — it is greening significantly from more CO2 in the air.

The past 150 years of intermittent global warming, and increasing CO2 emissions, has been the most prosperous and healthy 150 years in the history of our planet.

Only a fool would want the past few hundred years of climate change to stop.

The next climate crisis is most likely to be the end of the Holocene interglacial — it’s 10,000 years old, and due to end — perhaps tomorrow — perhaps in a thousand years — the slight warming now will be sorely missed when the planet moves out of the interglacial.

Question This
Question This
Jun 22, 2019 9:34 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene

Lets get this straight, you not only assert AGW is fake but diminishing biodiversity is a conspiracy theory?

For what its worth I do have very serious reservation about the use of computer modeling to simulate natural processes.

If you’re looking for a fool look in the mirror.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 10:14 PM
Reply to  Question This

I assert that the cause of the warming in the past few hundred years is unknown.

There is no scientific proof that any of the warming is man made.

Natural causes of climate change could have caused 100% of the climate change in the past 300 years, and is certainly responsible for 100% of the climate change before that (all 4.5 billion years)

Man made warming is an assumption, not a scientific fact.

You climate alarmists would have us believe that 4.5 billion years of natural climate change suddenly stopped in the 20th century, and CO2 took over as the “climate controller”.

No explanation of why, or how, that could happen, is ever given.

Just the usual leftist BECAUSE WE SAT SO !

I personally don’t care what the cause is — I love global warming and want more here in Michigan, where we live.

.
.
Diminishing biodiversity is a mindless computer simulation — computers do not produce data — computers produce whatever the programmers want then to produce.

If I want to see a fool in action, I’ll read your comments

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 23, 2019 1:18 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene

Richard Greene, are the commonly quoted statistics and predictions on diminishing biodiversity taken from computer models, then?

Do the researchers publish the parameters they use to obtain these modelled results? I thought I heard that they did not.

If you have any info, would be much obliged.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 24, 2019 11:17 PM
Reply to  Gardenfiend

Here’s what used to be said about extinction, about ten years ago, before the computer games changed everything. in 2019 with wild guess computer generated fantasies of doom:

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/what-they-
used-to-say-about-extinction.html

My first, and probably last, analysis of the new extinction delusion — reminds me of the Trump Russian Collusion Delusion:

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-extinction-delusion.html

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 24, 2019 11:18 PM
Reply to  Richard Greene
charles william
charles william
Jun 24, 2019 7:36 PM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

Earth is not Gaia nor is it billions of years old. The article starts from failed assumptions that strike to the author’s competency or character.

ateextermite
ateextermite
Jun 21, 2019 9:38 PM

have no fear doomongers – in the very near, if needed, the mainframe mother brain could send up the Nanobots…make the repAirs – I just hope IT doesn’t see us Humans as an irritation….as that’d defo be something to worry about.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
Jun 21, 2019 9:30 PM

This is broadly a very healthy article, however some terms used seem to me to be slightly inappropriate:

1. ‘one of the deepest Solar Minima of the space age’ is not really saying a lot.

Whilst cycle 24 is undoubtedly the weakest for a century and more, it is not particularly dramatic as compared to Maunder Minimum times….the space age started in 1960, when retreat from the most powerful solar cycle in modern history was just underway.

2. The term ‘Grand Minimum’ in my opinion is appropriate for a Maunder-style minimum, not a Dalton-style one. GRAND minimum implies rather more than one or two somewhat weaker cycles.

We are arguably into a 30 year cooling period with warmth returning afterwards. No-one has presented compelling evidence in my opinion for an epochal shift into another 200 year period when the Thames freezes regularly, glaciers advance rapidly from the European Alps and mass migrations toward the equator become necessary.

BigB
BigB
Jun 21, 2019 6:43 PM

Anyway, I cannot have been the only one to have come across the ACLU (and SPLC) post-Charlottesville …as probable Soros and OSF astroturf fakirs? With alleged ties to training AntiFa.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2017/03/aclu-actively-assisting-with-soros-driven-protest-organization-after-accepting-funds-from-the-open-society-institute/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-06/george-soros-key-funding-source-behind-muslim-ban-lawsuits

So, is it too intolerant to at least ask: who is Renee Parson?

Is her agenda the same globalist open border, societal destabilisation, regime change democracy as the OSF and Soros?

Are we actually shilling for the globalist corporatocracy now?

Does anyone else have any information on this, because Avaaz – another Soros front – is heavily behind Greta Thunberg. Never mind the climate: green neoliberalism has mobilised all its forces for a sustained global behaviour change campaign. To either manufacture consent – or nihilate dissent – for the privatisation of nature …to save capitalism.

I can’t be the only one that thinks there is more to behind this: the article is that bad. Are we being played for fools?

Simon Hodges
Simon Hodges
Jun 21, 2019 7:46 PM
Reply to  BigB

Who is Renee Parson, who is Greta Thunberg, who is BigB for that matter? At least I use my real name to stand out from you bots. You can’t trust anyone or anything in this technocratic age.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 22, 2019 4:20 AM
Reply to  Simon Hodges

I am not a bot, I am a pseudonym.

On the other hand, Asa Yoelson was a Russian Jew who was emigrated to the USA when his father, a rabbi and cantor who had left Russia to find a better life for his family, found it in Washington DC. The young Asa went on to become Al Jolson, the “King of Blackface” and the best paid performer of his time, but he weren’t no nigger, he were just another honky kike. Practically nobody, but practically nobody, turns out to be who or what they think they think they are or who or what they seem to be.

Admin
Admin
Jun 21, 2019 8:59 PM
Reply to  BigB

Since the entire thrust of the Extinction Project faux Green climate change exploitation campaign is to aggressively promote AGW as a means of – as you say – achieving wholesale changes in human behavior, I’m not clear how you think Renee’s measured and nuanced objections to this panic would be part of their plan.

Perhaps you should just accept she shares your scepticism but takes it a little further in a direction you don’t agree with?

Calm down. Take a breath. We’re all friends here. 🙂

But if you would really like to quiz her bona fides we can forward an email to her, I guess.

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 7:32 AM
Reply to  Admin

What changes in human behaviour have been brought about by the powers-that-be with resepct to burning fossil fuels? None. Carbon dioxide emissions have increased every year for the past thirty years, the only hint of a merest dent in the growth trend being in the year of the Great Crash of 2008/9.

The only thing that is at all likely to bring about such a change in human behaviour is a supply shock, but by now the damage is done.

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 5:49 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

Tsar Nicholas
The only damage being done is local damage, mainly in Indian and Chinese cities, from air, water and land pollution … problems that so-called environmentalists are strangely quiet about.

CO2 is not pollution — it is the staff of life — life on our planet ends without Co2.

Adding CO2 to the air, was, inadvertently, the best thing humans have ever done to improve the ecology of our planet — significantly ‘greening’ our planet.

More CO2 would be even better — our food plants prefer at least 1,000 ppm

But the CO2 must be added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels with modern pollution controls — without those pollution controls, real pollutants offset the benefit of adding beneficial CO2 to the atmosphere.

My conclusion is based on over 3,000 scientific experiments on plants grown with elevated Co2, which happen to be summarized in this over 1,078 page report:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CCR-II-Biological-Impacts-full-report.pdf

And the 1,078 page report also has a 20 page summary:

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-IIb/Summary-
for-Policymakers.pdf

If that’s too much reading, here’s my one page summary of a recent meta study on the nutritional value of foods grown with CO2 enrichment, with surprising results:

http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/dong-et-al-2018-elevated-co2-improves.html

Renee Parsons
Renee Parsons
Jun 22, 2019 1:19 AM
Reply to  BigB

i have not worked with the ACLU for more than three years now and am totally disgusted as they sit on the sidelines and allow antifa to run riot and otherwise turn a blind eye to assorted First Amendment violations…
if we are judging past associations as a clue to character and integrity, i also worked for Friends of the Earth on nuclear issues for 8 years – does that count?

BigB
BigB
Jun 22, 2019 9:18 AM
Reply to  Renee Parsons

Thanks for clearing that up. I’m sure you did sterling work there and at Friends of the Earth (not sarc) – particularly if it was anti-nuclear issues (there is a wierd ‘green’ sect of those – eg Monbiot, Hansen, Porrrit, …who are pro-nuclear environmentalists).

The more general point about FoE is that they are neo-corporate, para-state, recuperated CSOs …the ‘wrong kind of green’. They frame their campaigns around disposable plastic, plant more trees, and the general ‘net zero’ climate economy SDG Agenda 2030 policies. The exact same framing that is coming now from the TNCs (‘corporate social responsibility’; supra-national ‘multi-stakeholder governance’ for the ‘climate emergency’) the UN, through various heads of state; the GND and UK’s CCC mitigation agenda; the international CSOs and regional NGO para-state complex; permeating the para-statal MSM media-cultural complex; down to us. The same coordinated agenda; and the same mitigation policies – based on carry-on-capitalism, we’ll clean up for you, infantalising CCS, BECCS, the H2 economy, and a smattering of new nuclear. It has been absolutely clear from the UK governments own purchase policies (the CfD auction process) that renewables will actually play a minor part in their strategy.

Here’s the rub – and why I cannot support any of the views expressed above – is that there is a crisis – a huge evolutionary and existential crisis – which is way, way, bigger than just the climate. It is a permanent everything crisis. The proposed corporate solutions – which are a front for the privatisation and financialisation of nature – are wrongly framed around the ‘climate’. If you negate that argument, there is still a huge extinction-level threat and convergence of crises that have become problematised and invisibilised. Which antagonises the problem and obscures any real world solutions that may emerge.

The only solution I can see is a reframing of the debate – to propose, from science, a new paradigmatic ecological solution. Not least because the current paradigm – for all its own scientific individulaist rhetoric – has become anti-science, anti-ecology, and anti-consciousness. In short, the current paradigm is becoming totally dissociated from reality. We need a grounded empirical successor conscious ecological paradigm.

The corporate agenda that is becoming the new green neoliberal Zeitgeist – will enslave us all and destroy the earth in order to eek a few more decades out of capitalism: then what?
We are not the last generation to walk this earth. Though we certainly act as though we are. And in our conceit: we might be.

If you are genuine, and I’m not questioning that, you will know in your heart I am right. Also, it has nothing to do with ‘me’ being right. This is the ethos that must resonate in all of us. The trans-national corporatocracy has marshaled and unleashed all of its coordinated forces as an all-out assault on humanity. Individually, we are powerless. Together we might make a difference. Publish that?

BigB
BigB
Jun 22, 2019 11:57 AM
Reply to  Editor

Which it is not. I think it was the Australian Government (I can check later) that did a lifecycle analysis of nuclear …it supplies vitually no useful energy at all (EROI of 5:1 = borderline energy sink).

You’re right: what is “green” is the “wrong kind of green” or “darker green”. That there is no concept of “right green” shows the depth of penetration …right down to Radiohead and Mark Rylance. People are no fools: but they have been fooled.

Even Cory Morningstar has taken to retweeting support for the recourse to violent means. Which kind of defeats the ethos of a peaceful post-capitalist successor. There is no one to blame but myself: but it looks as though after years of indoctrination …almost all the entire consciousness of modernity is corporate captured …not just the pseudo-greens?

Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Jun 22, 2019 5:33 PM
Reply to  BigB

BigB
I only have a BS degree, and an MBA degree.
Perhaps I need a PhD to understand whatever it is you were blathering about.
You must be a riot at parties !

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 24, 2019 12:00 AM
Reply to  Richard Greene

“I only have a BS degree, and an MBA degree.”

Didn’t they tell you that an MBA degree cancels out a BS degree?

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jun 22, 2019 7:01 PM
Reply to  BigB

Now I think we’re making progress, BigB. The “new green neoliberal Zeitgeist,” as you call it, is not about saving the earth; it’s about saving capitalism. See: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

Especially Acts V and VI.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jun 23, 2019 2:07 AM
Reply to  BigB

BigB: If you are genuine, and I’m not questioning that, you will know in your heart I am right. Also, it has nothing to do with ‘me’ being right. This is the ethos that must resonate in all of us.

WE ENGINEER WEATHER, for both military & corporate gain …

get a grip 😉 !

Gary Weglarz
Gary Weglarz
Jun 21, 2019 4:59 PM

Having lived in the Arctic where I watched the climate changing in real time rather than over decades, and now living in southern California, where we no longer have forrest fires, instead we have literal infernos, I have made it a point to read extensively on “what” is happening on planet earth climate wise, regardless of “why.” When someone writing about climate posits the importance of the “why” of our rather catastrophic climate crisis – ahead of the actual literal physical realities of the crisis itself, including what it portends for all of us – I can only wonder – “why?”

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/21/permafrost-collapses-70-years-early/

https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

MLS
MLS
Jun 21, 2019 5:11 PM
Reply to  Gary Weglarz

No – the first question is – why has the warming been framed as a crisis?

Do we know the answer to that? Does the science robustly support the idea that the warming is a crisis, or has the science been hijacked, simplified, exaggerated, out and out lied about and then presented as a crisis to serve some interests?

This is the most crucial question

Gary Weglarz
Gary Weglarz
Jun 21, 2019 8:43 PM
Reply to  MLS

MLS – it’s framed as a ‘crisis’ because it is a ‘crisis.’ In fact it is much more of a crisis than the conservative mainstream science publications come out of the UN can even keep up with. Catch up on the current science regarding “what is actually happening” on planet earth, not “theory’s” about “why,” and then see if you can still tell me it “isn’t a crisis.”

https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 7:36 AM
Reply to  MLS

The warming has been framed as a crisis because when temperatures change as rapidly as they have been changing, you get a Mass extinction. We are deprndent on the natural world for our survival and we die when it dies.

Reality is objective, like the existence of two genders. even if nobody had framed the present warming as a crisis, we would be on a path to extinction, along with the rest of the biosphere.

Roger
Roger
Jun 22, 2019 1:54 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

If, as many believe, that the current warming cycle is occurring as part of a natural process, it is utter folly to think humans can do ANYTHING to change it.

Are permafrosts in the artic melting due to AGW, or natural geologic forces? Thermal vents and undersea volcanoes becoming more active come to mind.

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 4:42 PM
Reply to  Roger

Many believe that walking under a ladder is unlucky. Doesn’t make it true.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jun 22, 2019 11:53 PM
Reply to  Roger

“… it is utter folly to think humans can do ANYTHING to change it.”

BOLLOCKS, hoist the jolly roger, LOL 🙂

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jun 22, 2019 11:57 PM
Reply to  Roger

in case you did not take my comment seriously, i could destroy your house your hearing and you sanity with sonic resonance alone, let alone formulate the weather over your house for five consecutive years …

Age old technology, m8, start expanding your mind scientifically !

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jun 23, 2019 12:13 AM
Reply to  Roger

Roger, just in case you doubt the power of things that you cannot see, (nor i, or any other human), Hmmm, what should i say next, without wasting our time,

BOMB THE BASS or ELF

(chuckle), you kids today,

should watch how Japanese whaling ships have armed themselves against guys like Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd, lol the high frequencies will drive you nuts, without protective assistance, in very lil’ time !

Question This
Question This
Jun 22, 2019 2:28 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

Sorry i up voted your comment before seeing you use the terms “gender” in the same paragraph as natural world.

You could be forgiven for being indoctrinated in using the word gender instead of sex.

Tsar Nicholas
Tsar Nicholas
Jun 22, 2019 4:43 PM
Reply to  Question This

Thank you for underlining out your stupidity.

Question This
Question This
Jun 22, 2019 7:49 PM
Reply to  Tsar Nicholas

As opposed to your own intellectually superior response?

Gender is a fabrication.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 23, 2019 11:20 PM
Reply to  Question This

Une fabrication.

Ramdan
Ramdan
Jun 21, 2019 6:09 PM
Reply to  Gary Weglarz

That’s the thing! While we argue about if the science is settle or not, if it has been framed or not, if is man or a cycle….the planet is screaming for help…
The Earth is crying.

While we look whom or what to blame the planet is dying!.
And the solution everyone comes up with (Man made/no-man made, CO2/non-CO2) is more technology, more development, more advances, lets make up new things….
Instead of simplifying things we are just looking how to add more and newest variables to an already complex issue.

Isn’t it already time to stop? …. Isn’t it time to say ENOUGH!!
..to stop and look in the place we never look? Inside.
We don’t need new technologies, we don’t need extraterrestrial cities.
What we need is a ‘new’ way of thinking, a new perspective. One that does not have technology, money, profit or control at is core, but one that has the human being, all life, life itself at its core!!

With that, we wouldn’t be discussing which theory is right but just How do we fix this madness!
How do we move to simplicity, modest living standards for all, how we simply stop all and every war, all and every killing.

The world doesn’t need new technology or more developmet or money to solve all its issues. It needs NOT a new MIND. IT NEEDS A HEART!!!

Jadan
Jadan
Jun 22, 2019 4:26 AM
Reply to  Gary Weglarz

If one lives in California life has a crisis intensity to it with or without climate change or GW because the earth is forever shaking and threatening the Big One. It’s not a good place to practice complacency. But if one lives in Western North Carolina one can ignore climate change or GW because it hasn’t intruded too severely into one’s life. In other words, there are micro-climates, the sum of which may seem ominous, or terminal, but we each live in micro-climates, not in a grand abstraction called Climate, and I don’t notice that temperatures are unpleasantly high. I’ll grant that it’s not as cold as it once was. The seasons arrive as usual and that is a comfort. What I do notice, however, is the loss of amphibians, the frogs and salamanders. I notice the death of bee hives. The why of it is an important issue. Facts are useless without a context to fit them into. Is the fact of forest fires to be explained by GW? Is that an explanation for amphibian deaths, too. One has to be reasonable. One has to think about facts. What is the one fact that explains all the smaller facts? If one changed one fact that also changed all the others fact for the better, wouldn’t this be the lynch pin, the cause of our troubles. If human population on the planet were 3 billions, woodlands would not become infernos, amphibians would proliferate and we’d all be much happier. It’s not too much CO2, it’s not solar variations, it’s too many people. Reduce the number of people and the weather would improve. Other species would come back. This is the over riding fact we ignore.

BigB
BigB
Jun 22, 2019 9:34 AM
Reply to  Jadan

The overpopulation agenda is a neoliberal elitist framing. It is gross overconsumption on the part of elite neoliberals, extending down into 20% of humanity that is the main GHG source of the problem. See Kevin Anderson for one. Curbing the profligate consumption of the ‘climate elite’ would go a long way to equilibrising the biosphere. Although it now seems certain that ‘drawdown’ would still be needed.

But neoliberal expansionism, extractivism, and exploitation with a ‘net zero’ decarbonisation and technological financialisation global strategy will make thing much worse, by orders of magnitude.

Solutions begin where neoliberalism ends. Get rid of the neoliberal ‘new class’ climate elite. Get rid of capitalism, and replace it with humanism. Then we give ourselves a chance.

jadan
jadan
Jun 22, 2019 1:40 PM
Reply to  BigB

A fact is a fact. Because it is an inconvenient fact does not make it an ism that can be changed through re-education. Exceed the rated capacity of a bus and you may get away with it for a time, but you cannot claim that trying to be more polite and humane and limiting our flatulence will solve the overcapacity issue. And how does one establish a capacity? One sees that other species are perishing in the “sixth great extinction” and that our survival depends on this extinction. A rhinoceros will feed a bunch of people, but his horn will bring in enough cash so that we can all dine out. His territory is just wasted space, better suited for housing tracts. Overcapacity is an inconvenient fact; it is not an ism. It is a metapolitical fact. What little skill we have as politicians is entirely overwhelmed by our failure to acknowledge metapolitical reality. In economics one brushes it aside and refers to “externalities”. If your microclimate goes up in flames, it’s not because Smoky the Bear has gone rogue. Some human bozo is behind it all.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 23, 2019 11:15 PM
Reply to  jadan

I think that if, unlike me, you think we haven’t already gone too far and there’s still a way out of this mess then you should read and digest what BigB is saying before you start raising casual, inconsequential, quickthink contradictions to it.

Question This
Question This
Jun 22, 2019 2:25 PM
Reply to  BigB

That’s just ideological nonsense, you don’t want to believe the human over-population is having a ecological impact on the planet, so you are looking for scapegoats.

Destruction of habitat & ecosystems has a direct effect on natural processes, unless you are living on north sentinel island you will be having a significant negative impact on the ecology of the planet!

Literally no Homo sapien(s) is living within its ecological means in 2019, Our species probably hasn’t been living sustainably for more than 10,000 years. the Saan peoples were probably the last race to live within its ecological means.

BigB
BigB
Jun 23, 2019 1:15 PM
Reply to  Question This

It’s not: it’s factual. I said look at Kevin Anderson, for one, you did not.

The responsibility for global emissions is heavily skewed towards the lifestyles of a relatively few high emitters – professors and climate academics amongst them. Almost 50% of global carbon emissions arise from the activities of around 10% of the global population, increasing to 70% of emissions from just 20% of citizens. Impose a limit on the per-capita carbon footprint of the top 10% of global emitters, equivalent to that of an average European citizen, and global emissions could be reduced by one third in a matter of a year or two.

GHG emissions are a proxy indicator of wealth and material consumption too. The economy is biophyisical, not financial (a mere function of just capital and labour). Interpolating, that means 80% of humanity are consuming just 30% of resources and emitting only 30% of GHGs …which is a minimal per capita rate of consumption. Destruction of habitat and ecosystems is primarily for the rich.

Indigenous people everywhere have been colonised by capital for the benefit of green neoliberal capitalists …who in turn view the overpopulation as a drain on ‘their’ resources. Neo-self sufficient indigenous enhanced-subsistence forms of society cannot cause overpopulation. It is not in their interest to destroy their supporting eco-systems. Only industrialised capitalised forms of civilisation destroy more than they consume, or consume as waste. Overpopulation is intimately linked to oil consumption and the ‘Green Agricultural’ revolution.

A full discussion of the effects of deliberate dehumanisation and intentional enpauperisation for capital accumulation are beyond the limits of a comment. Suffice to say, if we are looking to blame: we should start at the top. Blaming the poor of the earth for being too many is a neoliberal framing. One that entails its own dehumanisation policy.

Roger
Roger
Jun 22, 2019 1:45 PM
Reply to  Jadan

The intensity of western US forest fires has been linked to aluminum in the soil, a result of Solar Radiation Management (i.e., “chemtrails”). Aluminum in the soil and trees acts as an fire accelerant. Research and see for your self. Also the mismanagement of said forests due to lack of brush clearing and abandonment of traditional fire mitigation measures, also contributes to the recent catastrophic fires.

AGW fear tactics are getting intense in Oregon to the point that state legislators are being hunted down by the governor to force a vote on taxing carbon. Things are “getting real”.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-21/come-heavily-armed-oregon-senator-threatens-violence-governor-hunts-down-lawmakers

jadan
jadan
Jun 22, 2019 11:06 PM
Reply to  Roger

Interesting point about the aluminum oxide in chemtrails. First we must convince the world that chemtrails exist and are not a conspiracy theory, then we have to demonstrate that they act as an accelerant! It’s tiring just to think about it!

Good King
Good King
Jun 22, 2019 9:43 PM
Reply to  Jadan

In your opinion, human lives are less important than frogs’? How should we reduce the number of people so you can get your frogs back? Like China’s birth quotas, like Romans’ decimation?

jadan
jadan
Jun 22, 2019 10:58 PM
Reply to  Good King

A statement like “All life is sacred” invites derision because our culture has little respect for human life, not to mention amphibians, birds, insects, and other mammals. We don’t need to worry about how to reduce our human population. This will happen automatically. Our cultural leaders do not see the need for it as they follow their stupid Biblical directives, so nature will take care of it. We will continue to battle against the nightmare of another global flu pandemic or some other existential threat. We are at war with enemies sneaking up on us from every direction known and unknown. We are at war with nature because we have forgotten what “sacred” means. We don’t have to distinguish between the value of your life and that of a frog because you are so vastly superior, but if a frog goes into extinction you ought to be keenly interested because you’re an amphibious creature, too, and you and I are most definitely standing in the same que.

Question This
Question This
Jun 22, 2019 2:16 PM
Reply to  Gary Weglarz

There’s no doubt the environmental changes you have personally witnessed are anthropocentric, but its not evidence of AGW.

But, there’s no doubting dumping millions of years of carbon deposits into the atmosphere in a few decades is going to have an impact on the biosphere, this can’t be denied.

IAN COLVILLE
IAN COLVILLE
Jun 21, 2019 3:59 PM

So, what’s wrong with the premise below, from an average guy trying to make sense of all this information..?

Here’s what I read (edited to be concise) through a link in the article above:

“Originating from outside the Solar System, galactic cosmic rays continuously bombard the Earth. To reach us they must pass through, and are deflected by, the Sun’s magnetic field. That field varies in strength, as evidenced by changing solar activity, and so the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth also varies accordingly.

A further variable effect is due to the action of cosmic rays in the formation of condensation nuclei and hence clouds. The resulting variable density of clouds varies the amount of sunlight that can penetrate the clouds in order to heat the Earth’s surface. The cloud is like a screen in a greenhouse controlling the temperature. Less low cloud cover means warmer temperatures and more and denser clouds means cooler temperatures. Of course, it’s all variable; sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler.”

Here’s what I made of it:

However, we’re told that greenhouse gasses (or CO2) are constantly, not variably, slowly but surely thinning the upper layers of the atmosphere e.g., the ozone layer, which means the Earth has less and less protection and more cosmic rays get through. If more cosmic rays get through, more and denser clouds will form, and if that is the case, the temperature of the Earth should get cooler, because less sunlight will penetrate.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jun 22, 2019 11:47 PM
Reply to  Louis Proyect

Yo, Louis lOuis , see ? your popularity climbs tenfold when you don’t utter a word 😉 🙂

Sorry Louis, I could not resist 😉

Reality is that there are far more significant scientific things to discuss, that you still don’t get or …

no further comment other than one question . . .

Do you know what an Artificial Ionospheric Mirror is and how to create it ?

Ramdan
Ramdan
Jun 21, 2019 1:03 PM

Well..honestly, I have NO IDEA if GW is because of CO2, the Sun, or is just another cycle BUT fact is that is getting HOT, and extinction is happening…and the way the article is written sounds a lot like:

‘Don’t worry, we are all good…we just need to build a few space ships and go interstellar!!!”

For some reason it brought to mind the recent Jeff Bezos ‘Elysium’ type solution….they say it could house a Trillion people…but, hey,…if they have not been able to- plain and simple- stop predatory behaviour here on Earth: Why will you do it in space??!! …..really??

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7024897/amp/Jeff-Bezos-futuristic-vision-self-sustaining-habitat-house-TRILLION-people-space.html

Headlice
Headlice
Jun 21, 2019 12:27 PM

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201906211075999623-conservative-uk-minister-eco-activist-assault-video/

Should have simply milkshaked the cow.

All pollution is anathema. But nukes are goong to kill you before the climate does. And glyphosate kills you a nasty little bit each day.

Tutisicecream
Tutisicecream
Jun 21, 2019 12:17 PM

Utopianism is not an infantile disorder unfortunately runaway capitalism is and it’s more an existential threat to us than a runaway greenhouse effect currently. But a good marketing strategy climate does make and that is why at the Fraudian they have gone all out climate catastrophe cachet.

Climate change, or weather as it was traditionally called in the English speaking world, has always been a damned tricky thing to predict. But climate clearly is more marketable than weather [just ask Michael Fish or Gretna Green – the girl on the train and her backers]

Now the effects of runaway capitalism + imperialism + exceptionalism is a mighty big incoherent storm the eye of which has the potential to blow the whole of humanity away in our nuclear age. And that is exactly why we need a more green and ecologically friendly approach to everything starting with ourselves and supported by responsible governing structures. Not the theatre of shadow play we currently call democratic capitalism.

It’s good to have this debate large, because change is what is needed and that means a complete one.

Jen
Jen
Jun 21, 2019 12:09 PM

Interesting and thought-provoking article. Thank you, Off-G.

If CO2 cannot be held solely responsible for AGW, then we should be asking ourselves what other gases or chemicals might be responsible and where these might be coming from.

Surely with all the wars going on around the planet, and the chemicals, chemical compounds and gases that have been released into the atmosphere by constant aerial bombardment, we should start to consider that the biggest contributor to AGW and the greatest threat to the global environment could well be … the military, and the politicians, government and non-government agencies, private individuals and corporations (such as armaments producers and the companies that own them or which are their shareholders – like the large banks for example) pushing the military to invade other nations and destroy them, and profiting handsomely from the aggression and destruction without a care for the long-term consequences. This is just one possibility.

Focusing on CO2 as though it is the sole contributor to AGW might be a distraction from the real cause/s, whatever that is or those are.

Guy
Guy
Jun 21, 2019 5:03 PM
Reply to  Jen

Good points .For a number of years I have noticed what I would call abnormal clouds or haze and wonder if we really are being sprayed with something .Call me a tin foil hat wearing old timer but I do believe weather modification methods just might be affecting our climate. I just can’t get behind the CO2 claims .

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 22, 2019 8:17 AM
Reply to  Guy

My personal theory, in the matter of long-existing, secret attempts at climate mitigation by malicious actors of the deep state sort, is that conspiratorial chemtrails are bullshit. However, in the matter of everyday Northern hemisphere observation, they are obvious and extremely unpleasant desecrations of the visible and breathable atmosphere. However, visiting relatives in the Southern hemisphere and a copious supply of baby and holiday photographs from there in between visits shows them to be a localized phenomenon. Aeroplanes there generate contrails that behave just like the contrails Northern hemisphere aeroplanes generated before the 1990s: here today and gone in 10 minutes. When a significant proportion of aerial petrochemical residues and particulates are injected into the atmosphere the normal condensation products of a rapidly moving object at high altitudes assume different properties of persistence and toxicity. Be a man and not a bird; walk, don’t fly.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jun 22, 2019 10:24 AM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Just for clarity, Robbo, are you suggesting that we humans have not experimented with

Artificial Ionospheric Mirrors ?

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 24, 2019 12:35 AM
Reply to  Tim Jenkins

HAARP? I’m suggesting that if US Americans or their accolyte$ world wide find anything at all like a quick fix for anything at all then the US government rushes them a no strings grant to send large, cost-free quantities of it to Nestlé to be very finely ground and added to their third world baby formulae.

But that policy does not extend to dispatching quantities of alumin(i)um oxide or barium or any similar thing else to jet fuel refineries or their airport depots or anywhere else.

Roger
Roger
Jun 22, 2019 2:13 PM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

“conspiratorial chemtrails are bullshit.”

Not where I live in Northern Virginia. These come from planes not flying normal commercial flight paths. Anyone with a discernable eye can tell the difference in their trails and resultant milky hazing of even the most brightest blue skies within hours, that something nefarious is taking place.

Your personal theory needs a second look.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 24, 2019 12:57 AM
Reply to  Roger

I see and have seen a ton of “chemtrails”, thank you for the condescension, most but not all of them associated with “normal commercial flight paths”, occuring–as you note–day after day and changing each day’s beautiful blue sky into a nasty sunset sludge that often obscures the sun. Now don’t read what I’ve wrote again, you’ll prefer it that way. P.S. Notifications’r’not us and I seldom look fof replies, so if you do reply and I don’t respond, it probably means just that.

Butties
Butties
Jun 21, 2019 5:42 PM
Reply to  Jen

Good point Jen, but also important is the contribution made by Gaia herself in the form of volcanic activity and those emissions she puts out.

I read somewhere, but cannot locate it, that the Iceland, Bali and Mexico events contributed huge CO2 amounts of some significance comparative to the anthropogenic contribution.

Another aspect of the CO2 (GW & CC) debate is that it is being controlled by the Austerity Implementation Group for their own purposes and Agenda.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 22, 2019 6:54 AM
Reply to  Butties

“If CO2 cannot be held solely responsible for AGW, then we should be asking ourselves what other gases or chemicals might be responsible and where these might be coming from.”

CO2 is only one of the scores of trace gases carefully explored and documented by scores of physicists and other scientists for their radiative and transmissive properties well over a century ago. John Tyndall developed a clear, scientific explanation of how small variations in trace gases, such as water vapour and carbonic acid (CO2 in water), could effect comparatively large-scale variations in atmospheric response. Arrhenius, who concentrated on the climatological properties of CO2, developed the first verifiable predictive mathematics for these processes. Renee’s science is a bit like emmental cheese: rather sickly and full of lacunae.

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 22, 2019 3:50 PM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Surely it’s leading the cart before the horse looking for suspects other than CO2? Modelling, based on CO2 trends, is the foundation of greenhouse warming predictions. What basis is their for expecting any apocalyptic climate events in that case?

Headlice
Headlice
Jun 21, 2019 12:04 PM

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-20/escobar-brazilgate-turning-russiagate-20

Bolsonaro whose job it is to fracture Brazil into 5 nations may run out of time to finish the job and end up swinging from a tree. A dogshit human is he.

Guy
Guy
Jun 21, 2019 5:05 PM
Reply to  Headlice

I know some Brazilian people that would celebrate such an event.Not being Brazilian , I certainly would break open some cold champagne.

maggywacky19
maggywacky19
Jun 22, 2019 4:53 PM
Reply to  Headlice

I didn;t know that the aim is to divide Brazil in 5 Nations. Any links or bibliography on it?

Malcolm Harris
Malcolm Harris
Jun 21, 2019 11:27 AM

Finally, an article that acknowledges some of the dissenting voices in the anthropogenic warming conversation. What a relief. Voices that have been conspicuously omitted from the public discourse, and consigned to oblivion by those who seemingly want the anthropogenic narrative with its calamitous conclusions to be true, despite all objections to the contrary. It is customary for ACC advocates to assign all objections to the activities of the fossil fuel industry. But the opposition to alarmist narratives comes from other scientists, not the fossil fuel industry, and in more ‘normal’ times these scientists would have had more presence in the pages of the mainstream media.
For reasons that must be regarded as suspicious, voices opposing the present climate orthodoxy have been ruthlessly excised from the public debate. Yet, their number is growing as outcomes in the real world fail to match climate model predictions. There are, as Renee Parsons mentions, many inconsistencies in the orthodox narrative which cannot be addressed in the space of a short article. But the reason for this is that these inconsistencies are never discussed or acknowledged by warmists or the mainstream media. For example the benign affect of Co2 on vegetation, which has led to considerable greening of the planet in the past decade, is never part of the warmist narrative. Instead we are assailed by tales of deforestation and other negative effects of corporate industry, which while true, have little or nothing to do global warming.

Ramdan
Ramdan
Jun 21, 2019 12:29 PM
Reply to  Malcolm Harris

..so…should we just go on with the deforestation?…

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 21, 2019 2:44 PM
Reply to  Ramdan

…..It….. needn’t be one, nor the other, surely?…………..

Joe
Joe
Jun 21, 2019 8:11 PM
Reply to  Malcolm Harris

Florida State, a public University. The governor of Florida banned the use of the term “climate change” in government. Would check to see where the author’s funding is coming from.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jun 21, 2019 10:15 PM
Reply to  Joe

The ACLU is not part of Florida’s government. It’s a private organization.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 22, 2019 9:20 AM
Reply to  Malcolm Harris

“For example the benign affect of Co2 on vegetation, which has led to considerable greening of the planet in the past decade, is never part of the warmist narrative.”

Bullshit. Arrhenius, whose work on the physics and mathematics of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere first introduced science into considerations of the climatological effects of the industrial era, enthusiastically welcomed both its warming effects that would serve to offset those of cyclic global cooling and the associated, favourable effect of the extra CO2 on plant biology. As they were based on deductive, falsifiable science, not waffling conjectural induction, his equations worked then and they work just as well now. What he got wrong in his prognosticaion–but not his science–was a crucial variable: he assumed that the rate of anthropogenic increase in CO2 levels in the following decades would continue to be as moderate, and hence controllable, in the future as it had been hitherto, whereas in the last 60 or 70 years it has increased exponentially with, just like the antiquated, gluttinous industrial activity that still spawns it, no signs yet of slowing down. It doesn’t matter how fucking green an outdoor plant is, if it gets too fucking hot–hence often too fucking dry, too fucking fast for its genetic capacities–it goes a nasty fucking brown and promptly (or even slowly) fucking dies.

The reason why so much computing is so riddled with exploitable hacks that make off with so many billions of dollars annually is because so many shitheads selling themselves as programmers to managements who wouldn’t know a computer program from a game of thrones don’t have a clue about the basics of their self-proclaimed “skill” sets.

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 22, 2019 1:14 PM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

So, reading between the sneer and bile, you in fact agree with the quoted passage at the head of your post.

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend
Jun 22, 2019 1:28 PM
Reply to  Gardenfiend

Or… perhaps I misunderstood, are you simply pointing out that it IS part of the warming narrative?

I would argue that it isn’t a widely advertised or reported part of the warmest narrative, simply based on the apocalyptic, reductionist fear porn that these issues usually get boiled down to. In general discussion, no one is apt to point out this greening scenario without going to some lengths – as you yourself have done – to rain scorn and foreboding over anyone who is uncouth enough to mention it and not finish the sentence with ‘and then we all cook in our skins like baked potatoes’.

Malcolm Harris
Malcolm Harris
Jun 24, 2019 12:00 PM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

So, maybe I should have used a capital ‘W” when using the word, ‘warmist’. I was just looking for a suitable word at the time, and its true that Arrhenius predicted warming. But everybody at the time thought that was a good idea. The label ‘warmist’ is a specific name given to zealous advocates of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative. And they, almost without exception, have nothing nice to say about co2, even though they are mostly made of the stuff.

Headlice
Headlice
Jun 21, 2019 11:00 AM

Who gives a fuck about the climate changing CO2 malarky.? Like honestly you’ll fuck me, you think Vlad is going to roll over for Pedosam.? Nuh, not hapening. What is happening is you are being emotionally played. You have projected yourself into the noble violinist aboard the ship asinking. You need to wake up. You need to consider the chances of you surviving the upcoming very very nasty war given your domestic and life situational choices.

Global warming will be quite lethally trumped by nuclear winter. The few hundred millions remaining will in coming generations prosper. Is your seed or knowledge going to play a part.?

There is an almighty passover coming. Are you chosen. Have your lintel marked do you.? Could or can the scythe be dodged. Anyway it is up to you to decide whether the Malthusian promise liquidates you.

maggywacky19
maggywacky19
Jun 22, 2019 5:12 PM
Reply to  Headlice

Right on. I suggest that people read – New Dark Ages – Technology and the End of the Future = by James Bridle. On page 88 – talk about “Rogeting”, named after the Thesaurus, which involves carefully substituting synonyms for words in the original text – in order to fool the algorithms, : which detects plagiarism. “But neither plagiarism nor outright fraud suffice to account for a larger crisis within science replicability.

The book has extensive bibliography, some of which I have cross referenced.
The thesis of the book is many scientific paper are not been replicated because of computer improperly used or by how much we don’t know.

Headlice
Headlice
Jun 21, 2019 10:13 AM

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/11/u-s-intelligence-crisis-poses-a-threat-to-the-world/

The northern ice sheeting and snowmounts have had the abedo altered by particulate matter, and much of that carbon soot. That is why the glacier retreats, the cap thins, the temperature climbs. Dieselgate was a great little way for “them” to put 20 years of carbon black into and onto various broad acre forms of frozen water, snow and ice.

It’s a con is CO2.! Bollocks.

The south eastern corner of NSW mainland Australia is frightfully dry. Staggering actually. Seems like the drought set in in 1982 and has only lifted and only by the smallest amount a few times since. Climate change monkeys are playing up merry hell. It’s that devil CO2 they shriek, the pathetic soy boys now impersonating men. Ooh aaah and a river of piss. .

But that is fucken bullshit cunt. What’s going on is the Javanese are burning Borneo and Kalamantan. The little blighters are setting for to jungle to clear land for oil palm. The soot from those fires is carried into the cumulos columns which build upon the Sunder and Timor seas. Weather in Australia largely streaks from north west to south east. And so the Javanese seed those clouds resulting in them hanging low in their journey to the south east such that they can’t help but disgorge their contents onto the first little hill they are lifted by. So the largely infertile lands of central Australia recieve these days 50% more rain than they did up until the very recent past whilst the Great Dividing Range finds no water to lift from these already emptied clouds.

Most of those shrieking C oh fucken two are fuckwits and the rest are one’s kith and kin.

No man shall buy or sell save he who uses the signifier of all life…CARBON

The carbon dollar comes.

BigB
BigB
Jun 21, 2019 10:12 AM

I’m inclined to agree with Jeremy below: shame on whichever editor chose this. Particularly the timing. Welcome to the anti-debate …it’s deja vu all over again.

So let’s discuss the issues. No, not those issues: that is a perfidious list of long defunct denialist tropes. Let’s discuss the underlying science of World Systems Ecology. Debunk or deny entropy.

Let’s for the sake of “discussing the issues”: take the contra-factual above as factual …even the science fiction bit at the end (what difference do ‘gas guzzlers’ make if they are coughing out plant food?).

Those things being equal: everything else in the system is subject to the 2nd Law (as quantifiable as EROI). Even with an infinite negentropic ZPF energy source: every other primary resource would be subject to exponential depletion. We are at peak everything – even sand …what do we want – the concretisation and urbanisation of nature?

The Human Impact convergence crises are a full spectrum dominance over our expansionist negentropic imaginarium. Overexploitation, extractivism, industrialised agriculture, and urbanisation are all more harmful and impactful on species extinctions, biodiversity, and biospheric integrity …and are thus all much greater threats than climate change. So is debt deflation, overcapitalisation, maldistribution of resources, and structural wealth polarisation and intentional impoverishment and dehumanisation. Threats that will not be abated by ‘greening’ the planet with GHGs. Or a negentropic energy source.

[I made a partial list of many of the aspects of the Human Impact crises over on the “Victim of the WWF” forum. The full appreciation of the intersectionality of our permanent ‘everything’ crisis is way beyond BTL commentary. My conclusion that Modernity is mass murder should be self-evident. The level of self-deceit we are indulging to obfuscate this axiomatic self-evident truth is self-defeating and ecocidal. Which is what makes the agenda of this article so pernicious].

What it boils down to is ‘ontological confrontation’. Those conditioned as objective reductive scientific materialists cannot, and will not, understand the intrinsic interconnectedness of debt, entropy, species extinctions, and overexploitation …that result in a causal singularity of human impacts. If no one is bothered about the evnironmental impacts: humanity is heavily negatively impacting humanity on a daily basis …due to the structural impacts of intentional enpauperisation and primitive accumulation of the dehumanised periphery. According to the UN: 30,000 unpeople die daily of preventable poverty related causes. So that the bleeding heart, hand-wringing, ‘progressive’ neoliberal imaginarium can be sustained by shit like this. Which amounts to a criminal self-conceit.

Change can only come from radical responsibility for the world we create R