267

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
avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Max King
Reader
Max King

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
Reader

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
Reader
Max King

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.

midnight
Reader
midnight

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
Reader
BigB

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.

Richard Greene
Reader

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

Frank Speaker
Reader
Frank Speaker

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.

Gardenfiend
Reader
Gardenfiend

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!

leonardo
Reader

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.

leonardo
Reader

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
Reader
Bill Price

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
Reader
Bill Price

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
Reader
Kenan Meyer

“…. 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
Reader
Jim Scott

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.

Gardenfiend
Reader
Gardenfiend

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
Reader

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
Reader
Gardenfiend

Thanks!

Richard Greene
Reader

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
Reader

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 ?

Brian
Reader
Brian

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
Reader

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.

Tim Jenkins
Reader
Tim Jenkins

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
Reader
Frank Speaker

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

Tim Jenkins
Reader
Tim Jenkins

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 ! ?

Frank Speaker
Reader
Frank Speaker

Am I culpable?

No, it’s a lot worse that that.

Tim Jenkins
Reader
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
Reader
Frank Speaker

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
Reader
Frank Speaker

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…

Gardenfiend
Reader
Gardenfiend

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

Question This
Reader
Question This

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.

Frank Speaker
Reader
Frank Speaker

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

Headlice
Reader
Headlice
Question This
Reader
Question This

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
Reader
Question This

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

Savorywill
Reader
Savorywill

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
Reader
Seamus Padraig

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.

Savorywill
Reader
Savorywill

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.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

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

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

Robbobbobin
Reader
Savorywill
Reader
Savorywill

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/

Yarkob
Reader
Yarkob

if you know when it appeared the waybackmachine will have it

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

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

Savorywill
Reader
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.”

Jim Scott
Reader
Jim Scott

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
Reader
Savorywill

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.

Headlice
Reader
Headlice

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
Reader
Tsar Nicholas

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).

Richard Greene
Reader

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
Reader
Tsar Nicholas

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.

Richard Greene
Reader

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.
.

Good King
Reader
Good King

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
Reader
Tsar Nicholas

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
Reader

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

Seamus Padraig
Reader
Seamus Padraig

… 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!

Jim Scott
Reader
Jim Scott

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.

Richard Greene
Reader

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.

Tsar Nicholas
Reader
Tsar Nicholas

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.

Gardenfiend
Reader
Gardenfiend

…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
Reader
Tsar Nicholas

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.

Richard Greene
Reader

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
Reader
Jim Scott

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
Reader

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.

Gardenfiend
Reader
Gardenfiend

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?

Jim Scott
Reader
Jim Scott

No.

Yarkob
Reader
Yarkob

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
Reader
Robbobbobin

Everything is chaotic until it isn’t.

Gardenfiend
Reader
Gardenfiend

Denial is strong in this one.

Richard Greene
Reader

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.

Tsar Nicholas
Reader
Tsar Nicholas

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
Reader
Gardenfiend

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.

Bob Hoye
Reader

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.

Steve
Reader
Steve

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.

Tim Jenkins
Reader
Tim Jenkins

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 … !

Tsar Nicholas
Reader
Tsar Nicholas

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.

Steve
Reader
Steve

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
Reader
Tsar Nicholas

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.

Richard Greene
Reader

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
Reader
Tsar Nicholas

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
Reader

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.

Richard Greene
Reader

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 !

Jim Scott
Reader
Jim Scott

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.

Richard Greene
Reader

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”.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

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.

daninbluemd
Reader
daninbluemd

@ 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.

Richard Greene
Reader

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
Reader
daninbluemd

@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.

m35
Reader
m35

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.

daninbluemd
Reader
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
Reader
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.

axisofoil
Reader
axisofoil
Question This
Reader
Question This

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
Reader
axisofoil

Don’t forget the degradation of human consciousness.

Tsar Nicholas
Reader
Tsar Nicholas

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.

axisofoil
Reader
axisofoil

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?

Richard Greene
Reader

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.”

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

“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?

Admin
Moderator
Admin

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.

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

“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.

Richard Greene
Reader

Are you trying to ruin our fun Admin ?

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

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
Reader

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

Tsar Nicholas
Reader
Tsar Nicholas

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
Reader

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
Reader
Robbobbobin

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
Reader

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
Reader
Headlice

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