This month’s open thread for climate science discussions. Be nice, it’s Earth month.
Reader Interactions
361 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Apr 2021"
Piotrsays
MARodgers(114) Forgive me as I am a mere denizen of reality, but
Your humbleness would be admirable, if it weren’t so coy: you are using it as jump off point to call my arguments “preposterous” and to accuse me, again, of conceit: “ such a clever one as yourself“.
BTW – my “preposterous claim” is that the viscous layer DOES NOT insulate the micro-layer from the mixed layer, but that that there is strong heat flows from the mixed-layer across 1mm viscous layer and into the atmosphere. The flow has to be strong enough to release close to 190W/m2 that enters mixed layer via solar rad. Preposterous!
MAR(114): this said to explain why you were “not saying the paper is wrong or irrelevant,” thus as a minimum putting in doubt the validity of the paper.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar: saying that “ I was not saying the paper is wrong or irrelevant” may mean that “I was not saying the paper was wrong or irrelevant”, for the simple reason that I don’t dismiss papers as wrong if I have not done the work of reading them in detail. And I didn’t read this one in detail, because it was NOT NECESSARY for the task at hand:
Piotr (83): [the JGR paper’s modelling] may be interesting, but it is NOT NECESSARY to shot down the supposed paradox that can be disposed off with a single sentence
And why on Earth would I insidiously suggest that the JGR paper was “wrong”, when the paper assumptions are identical to mine (the mixed layer is strongly coupled with the surface film) and negating yours (your “insulation” from the mixed layer)? See also:
Piotr(103): “– either ALL of the 190 W/m2 of shortwave rad. that was absorbed by the mixed layer moves into the microlayer and, from there, into the air – and then my argument was correct
– or it can’t move all 190 W/m2, and then the ocean’s mixed layer keeps getting warmer and warmer, and Minnett was wrong since in his JGR paper he didn’t use any other mechanism of moving heat between the mixed layer and microlayer than I did.”
In other words, I said there that if you are right then BOTH “Minnett” and I are wrong. You read it and then portray me as thinking: “ since I am ever correct then Minnett is “all wrong”“…
And when I pointed the difference between what I said and what you made out of it,
you, instead of owning up to it, hid behind words:
MAR(114) “of course we both “see the difference, right?” It is ‘righting the difference’ that is beyond us.”
I’m now hosting a “Climate Chat” club on the new social media app ClubHouse (CH). It’s an audio-only app that is in a radio call-in show format. There are millions of users from around the world discussing just about every subject. We cover all things climate including climate science, solutions, advocacy, environmental justice, policy and communications.
I like to feature experts in the above fields, so if anyone has research they would like to share with a diverse group of people from around the world who are interested in climate change, please let me know. I’m especially interested in getting different points of view and welcoming woman and people of color.
If you have suggestions for topics or speakers (including yourself), please contact me at ClimateChatClub (at) gmail (dot) com. There is no set schedule so we can accommodate your availability.
You do need an invitation to join and I can provide that to our guests. At this point, the CH app works only on iPhone but an Android version is coming in a month or two.
* Support the EU Green Deal
* Put all carbon fuels into #EUETS + social compensation
* Let cap decrease faster.
* Delete surplus allowances.
* Make importers buy allowances for embodied emissions (#CBAM)
Easy to understand. Works. Do.
#climatechange #energiewende
Leon Simonssays
The global reduction of sulfur emissions from shipping poses a real world research opportunity to quantify the climate effects of changes in aerosol emissions and cloud seeding over oceans. Additional global warming (increase in net forcing) could be as high as 0.33 W/m² (very low level of certainty) or 0.25C° (at 0.75C / W/m²) from a reduction of the negative aerosol forcing in previous decades.
Sulfur aerosol emissions over seas and oceans have been largely mitigated through fuel sulfur limits regulation of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The impact on the global climate is highly uncertain and requires more attention in order to increase understanding of past, present and future climate change.
From 2020 onward there is a significant mitigation of SOx aerosol (precursor) emissions of 8.5 million Tg per year from IMO 2020 regulation and there is a total global reduction of SOx emissions over the seas and oceans of ~90% since 2010 (from IMO MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14 on fuel sulphur content for shipping or Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (EGCS) use).
Understanding the atmospheric and climatic effects of this regional and global reduction in emissions is crucial. Earlier research from Eyring et al. (2009) estimated the forcing of shipping in 2000 to be -0,33 W/m², with very low level of certainty (-0.67 – +0.03). Other studies show similar estimates or significantly lower when not taking into account cloud lifetime effects. Measurements show that due to higher levels of aromatic compounds in new fuels combustion leads to an increase in emissions of black carbon shipping. This combination of less cooling and more warming aerosols emitted over the oceans could significantly increase (or have already increased) the net anthropogenic forcing.
Bob Loblawsays
Responding to sidd @ 115 in last month’s UV thread.
Yes, I can see how that might be a way to measure thermal conductivity in liquids.
The measurements I was talking about in #111 were not an attempt to measure the thermal conductivity of water. We were trying to measure the thermal conductivity of freezing soils (temperatures in the range 0 to -5C), which presents a multitude of issues:
– fine-grained soils (silts, clays) at those temperatures still contain a lot of unfrozen water, in part due to capillary effects, but for a variety of reasons.
– the thermal conductivity is strongly dependent on the phase of water (liquid, solid) because ice has a much high conductivity than liquid water.
– the amount of unfrozen water is strongly dependent on temperature (less at colder temperatures), so any heating causes a change in the property you are trying to measure.
– any gradient in temperature also induces liquid water flow from warm to cold (the frost heave process), so any persistent temperature gradient causes mass transfer.
So, we needed a conductivity probe design and data analysis method that minimized thermal disturbance – short pulses of heat and watch the temperature decay back to equilibrium. The probe design was a few mm in diamater and about 20cm long (long enough to be treated mathematically as an infinite line source) with an internal heater and temperature sensor. Solid copper so it’s thermal conductivity was much higher than the surrounding soil.
We used plain water to see if we were getting reasonable results. Even with that short heat pulse methodology, water was too mobile without the Jello shot. It only took 1-2% gelatin to accomplish the task of solidifying the water, so we still basically had almost nothing but water.
Russell Seitzsays
Statistical climatology has passed an historic milestone :
Why should a rational person believe that we are currently experiencing a “climate crisis”?
Piotrsays
Tom Nelson says (7) “Why should a rational person believe that we are currently experiencing a “climate crisis”?”
Assuming that person have done their homework and read the literature on the subject (could have started with the latest IPCC report), a less banal question would be: “how that person rationalizes his disbelief in climate crisis? “
Piotrsays
re: MARodgers(114) [continuation of Piotr (1)]:
MAR(114) – “ Now @113 you appear to be saying that this paper is correct and perhaps that you are actually in agreement with “Minnett”.”
Huh? “ Now @113″, “perhaps”, “actually” ???? I have been “in agreement with “Minnett”” FROM THE BEGINNING of this discussion. That’s why I said that we BOTH can kill the metaphoric mosquito (the denialist claim relying on the surface microlayer being “insulated” from the mixed layer), and my ONLY reservation for calling on the JGR paper, was that it would have been an overkill (“ killing a mosquito with an advanced cannon“).
MAR(114) “Perhaps if you were to “go through the details of it,”
I don’t see the point:
First, and most important – NO NEED: to kill our denialist mosquito – we don’t need the details of their calculations, but only their assumptions, seen for instance in their Fig. 6. – there is a 0.1 mm thick TSL (thermal skin layer) AND there is gradient of temperature ACROSS it – which means that the heat flows from the mixed layer across the bottom of TSL and toward its top, and from there – into the air.
Ergo the top of TSL is not “insulated” from the mixed layer, as your and denier’s arguments require.
(The rest of the paper is about collection of the data to run this model and to calculate the magnitude of the FLUXES across the TSL under various wind conditions and various cloud cover (with larger cloud cover simulating the higher DWIR of a globally warmed world), and a such NOT NEEDED to the much simpler subject of this discussion (that top of TSL is NOT “insulated” from the mixed layer).)
Second, I don’t think it would be worth the time it would require – given how you have managed to misinterpret both the JGR paper and my (much simpler) posts so far.
Third, in the same sentence in which you extend the olive branch by proposing joint reading – you … can’t stop yourself from petty insinuations of my supposed vanity:
MAR (114); “which shouldn’t be too much to ask of one eons cleverer than I could ever imagine“. So forgive me if I don’t trust your sincerity.
UAH has reported its March TLT anomaly at a distinctly chilly -0.01ºC, the lowest anomaly since Sept 2018 and the coldest March since 2014.
On UAH TLT, Jan to Mar 2021 averages +0.1ºC which puts 2021 as the 12th warmest start to the year, with 2016 sitting in top spot with its Jan-Mar average at a toasty +0.59ºC.
Richard Caldwellsays
Bob Loblaw: ice has a much higher [thermal] conductivity than liquid water
RC: Which was one of the points in the “arctic sea ice is a radiator, not an insulator” paper that only I seem to remember. Different timeline, I suppose.
This is a science site run by some of the world’s finest, who have both the skills and the dedication to follow evidence, describe it, and evaluate what is going on.
Asserting that reality doesn’t exist is evidence of a lack of ability to use the five senses and exercise critical thinking. At this point, you don’t need “proof”, you need to get out of that hermetically sealed chamber of illusions and pay attention to the world’s weather, to toxic waste, to something – anything – beyond the horizons of the cult of blindness and delusion.
Robert L. Bradley @12,
In your OP that you link-to, you begin by asking the question “How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?” Such a question does not well describe AGW which overwhelmingly concerns the impact of warming that would result from rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Yet you answer this question as though CO2 were the cause of “the earth … increasingly polluted and … natural resources … being exhausted” and, without a hint of any climatological consideration, end by quoting climate change denier Alex Epstein so as to then brand AGW mitigation as anti-libertine.
As you fail to set out any climatological argument for unconstrained CO2 emissions, you are perhaps unaware/in-denial of the impact such a policy would have on our planet and on the future for humanity. Imagine CO2 was not warming the world but cooling it. We know what happens when the world cools a few degrees centigrade and this would probably cool down the arguments that a just a few degrees centigrade would have only a minor impact on humanity and its world.
But the world is warming and the problems that would cause if we allowed it are evidently too obscure for the likes of you to comprehend.
You tells us you “just don’t see the crisis at all” and kick off your comment @12 by saying you are “with Tom Nelson” who @7 provides a link to his webpage which sets out so much nonsense that debunking it all would be a herculean task. (Mind, decapitating it is quite a simple process. This paper, Collins et al (2019) ‘Centennial‐Scale SE Pacific Sea Surface Temperature Variability Over the Past 2,300 Years’, according to the first link in the first link, supports the position of swivel-eyed denialists.)
Perhaps you should ask somebody to explain AGW to you rather than mouthing off as though you know what you’re ranting about.
Killiansays
Why, god, why, do you allow the trolls to troll? We are soooo far past the time when dealing with them gave a positive return. We are past the tipping point on awareness. It serves zero purpose to allow them to continue the Big Lie. The Big Lie, as we *all* know, only benefits the liar.
I give you Trump as exhibit A.
michael Sweetsays
Robert Bradley at 12:
All the cherry picked references in your Op-Ed piece are from before 2000. You need to update your article with current information. Cherry picking extreme quotes and saying that is the mainstream scientific position does not make sense. Are you a supporter of the insurrection in Washington since you are right wing?
We are looking at trillions of dollars of damage to the US economy from sea level rise. That does not include increasing storm and flooding damage inland or drought and fire damage. Millions of people worldwide are already climate refugees. How much damage do you need to pay for before you decide it is a crisis?
RLB 12: I’m with Tom Nelson above. Just don’t see the crisis at all and feel like ‘deep ecology’ has made an open scientific question dogmatic.
BPL: Well, instead of getting your climate science from aier .org, why not try getting it from the peer-reviewed science literature, or at least from textbooks?
Piotr @9,
You say you “don’t see the point” for you to do what I suggest and “go through the details of it” (“it” being Wong & Minnett (2018) which you call ‘the JGR paper’). But if you do not “go through the details of it”, how can you assert so bravely that you are actually in agreement with Minnett and that you have been in agreement “FROM THE BEGINNING of this discussion”?
You defend not to “go through the details of it” by setting out three points of counter-argument.
☻ Your third point suggests you see my suggestion to “go through the details of it” as some sort of trick as you fear I do not make the suggestion with sincerity.
☻ Your second point suggests it would be a waste of time, not because you have nothing to learn but because in your analysis I have previously misrepresented both you and Wong & Minnett. Perhaps you fear that anything you learn would be too much for me to understand or to accept.
☻ And your first point returns to your “No need to shoot a mosquito with an advanced canon” argument. This argument does suggest some level of disagreement with Wong & Minnett in that you say this paper gives but “details” which are “not necessary” while Wong & Minnett (2018) say “It is … not clear how the greenhouse effect directly affects the ocean’s heat uptake in the upper 700 m of the ocean.” So is then the paper “not necessary” or is the situation “not clear”? To us denizens of reality these two appear mutually exclusive and I would suggest this is not the only point “FROM THE BEGINNING of this discussion” (eg @89UVMarch) that you have contradicted Wong & Minnett.
Thus I find your reluctance to “go through the details of it” as being particularly presumptuous of you.
CCHolleysays
RE. Robert Bradley @12
haha…Robert Bradley, of Enron fame, chimes up in support of another old fossil of the climate denying fossil fuel shill gang. Poor Bradley can only manage to earn an amoral living by supporting the dying fossil fuel industry. I suppose losers tend to gravitate to losing teams.
And the fossil fuel industry is losing.
Regardless of *belief* in science green energy is cheaper today in most of the world and these costs continue to decline rapidly. As for new generating capacity expected to go on line in the US this year 80% will be green, 4% nuclear, and only 16% natural gas. New coal is certainly dead and green is clearly on the rise.
Not only that, electric cars are without a doubt the future. Period. All major auto producers are moving in that direction regardless of government intervention (note Tesla sold over double last years first quarter volume first quarter this year with no government incentives.) Why? Because electric cars are simply better and the only impediment, cost, is declining rapidly.
As for government intervention in the *hoax* the API now endorses government backed market based solutions to the climate crisis as does the US Chamber of Commerce and Business Round Table.
“The risks of climate change are real,” API’s annual report.
haha, must be some mighty good hoax for those prestigious business organizations to get on board.
It would appear you have your answer in many responses. There are so many Ivory Tower Dunning Kruger’s that are so entrenched in their dogma they refuse to even acknowledge the empirical evidence that counters their computer models.
Joe Wellbornsays
It’s a long faith-based leap to get from trace atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas to we’re experiencing a CO2-induced climate crisis. It also requires a certain level of willful ignorance and/or disingenuity to not acknowledge that there is, in fact, considerable debate within the scientific community on the climate crisis thesis.
Susan Andersonsays
Very interesting. The need to promote disinformation presents a live member of the profiteering by lies class here, much more than a gadfly. For more detail, here: https://www.desmogblog.com/robert-l-bradley-jr
MARodgers(19) You say you “don’t see the point” for you to do what I suggest and “go through the details of it” (“it” being Wong & Minnett (2018) which you call ‘the JGR paper’).
_This_ again? You have made this point ALREADY TWICE BEFORE, so why do it AGAIN? But since you can’t give it a rest – I have used the shortcut “Minnett”, because THATS’S HOW the person who … brought the Wong and Minnett into the discussion (JCH 81), has referred to it:
JCH(87) – “ I suspect Minnett would disagree
JCH(97) – ” Would Minnett propose something that would boil the oceans?
So go and lecture JCH about _his_ informal attribution.
MAR(19) But if you do not “go through the details of it”, how can you assert so bravely that you are actually in agreement with Minnett and that you have been in agreement “FROM THE BEGINNING of this discussion”?
Because it does not REQUIRE reading the DETAILS of their paper to see that they used the SAME MODEL of the heat flow as I do, and the same model as HAS BEEN USED FOR DECADES in oceanography. And it does not take any special “bravery” on my part to REMEMBER what I have written in this thread over the last few days.
MAR(19) Your third point suggests you see my suggestion to “go through the details of it” as some sort of trick as you fear I do not make the suggestion with sincerity.
because you ENDED your suggestion with “which shouldn’t be too much to ask of one eons cleverer than I could ever imagine“. These are not the words of an open-minded person, whose ego is not entangled in the outcome of the proposed discussion.
MAR(19) Perhaps you fear that anything you learn would be too much for me to understand or to accept.
You may be getting your logical panties in knots here – why would _I_ “fear” that _you_ don’t understand anything … _I_ would learn???
Are you saying that I am some empathic new-ager so deeply concerned (“fearing”) about … your “inability to understand or accept anything I learned? Thank you, MA, but you give me too much credit – I am not _that_ considerate…
MAR(19( Wong & Minnett (2018) say “It is … not clear how the greenhouse effect directly affects the ocean’s heat uptake in the upper 700 m of the ocean.”
Their is a QUANTITATIVE analysis, using the cloudiness as a proxy for greenhouse effect and quantifying its effects under different wind conditions. As such, this analysis is UNNECESSARY to disprove the much simpler denialist claim that the top of the thermal skin layer (TSL) is “insulated” from the mixed layers.
The absurd of the deniers’ claim is easy to demonstrate even with a few sentences,
so NO NEED to use the “Howitzer” (Wong and Minnett) to kill a “mosquito”(MARodgers).
But if you still insist on the former – I already pointed you my (9) to their Fig 6, which is a THEORETICAL curve of the heat flux, BEFORE any original quantitative calculations are presented by Wong and Minnett.
Minnett RC(Sept. 2006): “ Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux“.
If you and deniers are right that the top of the skin layer is “insulated” from the mixed layer, then there would be NO “flux” to be “reduced” in the first place.
And before you say that you didn’t mean a “perfect” insulation – the insulation would have to be STONG ENOUGH to falsify my and Minnett’s argument, i.e. strong enough to prevent MOST (ALL?) of the ocean surplus of 190W/m2 from solar radiation, from leaving the ocean. But if it does prevent it, then a 50-m mixed layer boils in 3 years if all 190W/m2 were blocked, in 6 years if only half of it are blocked by a “50% effective insulation”.
But since the ocean is not boiling fish soup – neither seems to be the case. Which falsifies your and deniers claim. By their fruits (de mer? ;-)) you shall know how good is their “insulation”.
Travis T. Jonessays
Worst apocalypse. Ever.
Undeniably.
Robert L. Bradley Jr.says
Lots of criticism. I could not cover everything in that one post except that just because change is anthropogenic and not natural, that means it is bad. The Malthusians have substituted ‘livable climate’ as a depleting resource.
Lots here–I am not a ‘troll’ but just believe I have a superior case that the climate models are climate alarmists are exaggerating–and all of us can be more optimistic and don’t have to ruin our earth with wind turbines and solar panels.
nigeljsays
Regarding the ridiculous article “inside the church of climate” posted by Robert Bradley. The attempts to mock environmentalism do rather backfire because the cut and paste creates quite a good case for environmentalism and climate mitigation. So Bradlys critique is totally inept.
Couple of other comments on that article. Once again the denialists confuse weather and climate. Warming homes with various energy sources to protect us from the so called dangerous ever changing climate are in fact protecting us from the “weather”.
Freidrich Hayek is being hopelessly misinterpreted. He was alleging that governments aren’t as good as determining optimal allocation of resources as private sector free markets. Read his book a few years ago. It’s mercifully short. He never claimed governments shouldn’t deal with emergencies, or regulate industry relating to things like health and safety, and that countries shouldn’t cooperate for example to coordinate carbon tax rates etc, etc. Why anyone cant work that out beats me.
Richard Caldwellsays
CCHolley,
If I remember correctly, prestigious business leaders are exactly 0 for 10000 or so with regard to making wise, as opposed to profitable decisions with regard to the climate. Yet you claim their wisdom as evidence because….?
Rob Bradleysays
Lots of criticism, some constructive. I have been a student of the science for several decades, beginning with a long consulting relationship with Gerald North of Texas A&M University back when I was at Enron. My thoughts/interpretation of climate science is summarized here: https://www.aier.org/article/climate-alarmism-reconsidered/.
jgnfldsays
@27 “Lots here–I am not a ‘troll’ but just believe I have a superior case that the climate models are climate alarmists are exaggerating”
Then why not submit your “beliefs” to Nature or some other reputable science journal? Or are your “beliefs” based on any sort of publishable science?
“don’t have to ruin our earth with wind turbines and solar panels.”
Personally I prefer both to oil slicks and refinery emissions. But your reality varies, I guess.
Russellsays
How very droll to see Bob Bradley playing the role of a card-carrying Chicago School economist when the closest he got to v. Mises & Hayek was a diploma mill that , along with Bradley’s worthy tutor Hans Sennholz, claimed to have everyone from Yehudi Menuhin to Buckminiister Fuller on the faculty.
Trouble was that along with its fantasy faculty, International University had no classrooms, no library , and no national, let alone international accreditation, making its graduates ideally suited for firms like Enron, which Bob joined a year after his alma mater evaporated into a thin cloud of grift. Bob spent spent sixteen years forging talking points for his fellow Enron Directors, and wasn’t laid off until the Feds indicted some , and pulled the plug on the shenanigans of the others.
It’s a long faith-based leap to get from trace atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas to we’re experiencing a CO2-induced climate crisis.
Well, it *is* “long”. WG I took on the order of 15 chapters, 600 pages, and 30,000 citations to cover the distance, last time out–just approximating OTTOMH.
But is was more of a determined trudge over methodically placed stepping stones than a “leap,” and there were boatloads of both evidence and scientific skepticism all along the way.
Is there Still “considerable debate?” Sure.
But looks to me there’s a lot more “how bad & how soon” than there is “yes/no.”
jgnfldsays
@ “there is, in fact, considerable debate within the scientific community on the climate crisis thesis.”
Oh? Care to elucidate us on the specific current scientific issues with respect to said “thesis” which are receiving said “considerable” debate in the scientific literature and at conferences at the present time?
(Hint: There is no present “debate” in the literature on whether climate change is occurring. Nor is there any “debate” that there are now and will be increasing serious costs.)
You do read the current literature and keep up with contemprary conferences, right?
Question for you: Is is a “long, faith-based leap to get from a trace” amount of 400 ppm HCN in the bloodstream to dead as a doornail? (Actually the LD50 is only a fraction of even that “trace” amount.) “Trace” means “very small”. It does NOT mean “inconsequential” (but good propaganda try there!). Only an idiot would make that mistake with cyanide, or with carbon dioxide.
Ray Ladburysays
Liars and scam artists, regardless of political leanings, hate science because it exposes their lies and scams. Discredit science, and the sheep will be led easily to slaughter with promises of a capitalist/communist/glibertatian/Insert-religion-here paradise.
Science is the corrective lens that lets us see the world clearly and without self-delusion.
JW 23: It’s a long faith-based leap to get from trace atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas to we’re experiencing a CO2-induced climate crisis.
BPL: It’s not a “leap of faith” at all; it’s a matter of radiation physics. Please pick up a textbook on the subject, read through it, and work the problems. I’d suggest either Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres” or Petty’s “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation.”
JW: It also requires a certain level of willful ignorance and/or disingenuity to not acknowledge that there is, in fact, considerable debate within the scientific community on the climate crisis thesis.
BPL: No, there is not. There is overwhelming consensus that global warming is real, is man-made, and is the biggest threat ever to civilization outside of nuclear war. It requires a certian level of willful ignorance and/or disingenuity to not acknowledge that.
The most compelling evidence a layman can use to determine veracity here, is the complete unwillingness of one of the parties to engage in open debate.
While the Skeptical community has been pleading for open debate for years.
Something is rotten here.
The Obvious is that the Climate Scare monger community is frightened of being exposed in an open forum.
The rational human would ask “Are they hiding something?”
CCHolleysays
Richard Caldwell @29
If I remember correctly, prestigious business leaders are exactly 0 for 10000 or so with regard to making wise, as opposed to profitable decisions with regard to the climate. Yet you claim their wisdom as evidence because….?
Understand the cynicism, but where, pray tell, did I ever mention “their wisdom as evidence” of anything?
My point was simply that businesses, including the oil industry (sans Koch), are no longer denying the climate crises and no longer promoting denialism. Instead they are now supporting climate action albeit action that is, in their opinion, in their best (profit) interest. The business reality is that the fossil fuel industry is a dying industry and no longer worth protecting, regardless of whether or not there is actually a climate crises, because now there are better and cheaper alternatives. That is the simple truth.
Bradley supports a loser.
Russell Seitzsays
24
Susan, Sci. Am. has run some rather silly political rants of late, but Hotez’s spin on Soviet history takes the cake.
While Lysenko claimed mathematics had no place in biology, Hotez’s idea of history seems to have no place of chronology: millions perished in Stalins programmed famines a decade before Lysenko came to power.
Robert L. Bradley Jr. referenced two URL-s that downplayed the risks of AGW. The author of the URL-s is the American Institute for Economics (AIER). According to Wikipedia, that institute also
Issued the “”Great Barrington Declaration”, arguing for herd immunity;
Argued against the effectiveness of mask wearing;
Argued against social distancing; and
Receives money from the Charles Koch Foundation.
As a consequence, listening to AIER isn’t worth my time.
Travis T. Jonessays
“Once again the denialists confuse weather and climate.” – nigelj
Uh oh. Didn’t get the memo?
“A few years ago talking about weather and [global warming] in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists.
The tumbling of records has also prompted conversations in the scientific community to turn a corner.
Previously, ‘weather is not climate’ was the mantra, but now, the additional boost from greenhouse gasses was influencing every event.” – Professor Will Steffen, Australia’s leading climate scientist.
…there is, in fact, considerable debate within the scientific community on the climate crisis thesis.
I am unaware of any peer-reviewed, scientific literature that supports this assertion.
Do you have references, or are you just making it up?
zebrasays
BPL #40,
Not until May 2. If you are going to indulge in cultural appropriation, as they say, at least get the date right.
Ian Forrestersays
NW at 41:
“The most compelling evidence a layman can use to determine veracity here, is the complete unwillingness of one of the parties to engage in honest debate”.
There, I corrected your comment to reflect the reality of how dishonest AGW “skeptics” are. There is plenty of honest debate in the peer reviewed scientific literature if you would only care to look.
I think the MLO numbers are out there again. This number is showing more unusual yoy increases than it has in the years I have been following the MLO number.
The sky is not falling, but I think something is happening that is causing unusual peaks in the measurements at MLO.
MARodgers(114) Forgive me as I am a mere denizen of reality, but
Your humbleness would be admirable, if it weren’t so coy: you are using it as jump off point to call my arguments “preposterous” and to accuse me, again, of conceit: “ such a clever one as yourself“.
BTW – my “preposterous claim” is that the viscous layer DOES NOT insulate the micro-layer from the mixed layer, but that that there is strong heat flows from the mixed-layer across 1mm viscous layer and into the atmosphere. The flow has to be strong enough to release close to 190W/m2 that enters mixed layer via solar rad. Preposterous!
MAR(114): this said to explain why you were “not saying the paper is wrong or irrelevant,” thus as a minimum putting in doubt the validity of the paper.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar: saying that “ I was not saying the paper is wrong or irrelevant” may mean that “I was not saying the paper was wrong or irrelevant”, for the simple reason that I don’t dismiss papers as wrong if I have not done the work of reading them in detail. And I didn’t read this one in detail, because it was NOT NECESSARY for the task at hand:
Piotr (83): [the JGR paper’s modelling] may be interesting, but it is NOT NECESSARY to shot down the supposed paradox that can be disposed off with a single sentence
And why on Earth would I insidiously suggest that the JGR paper was “wrong”, when the paper assumptions are identical to mine (the mixed layer is strongly coupled with the surface film) and negating yours (your “insulation” from the mixed layer)? See also:
Piotr(103): “– either ALL of the 190 W/m2 of shortwave rad. that was absorbed by the mixed layer moves into the microlayer and, from there, into the air – and then my argument was correct
– or it can’t move all 190 W/m2, and then the ocean’s mixed layer keeps getting warmer and warmer, and Minnett was wrong since in his JGR paper he didn’t use any other mechanism of moving heat between the mixed layer and microlayer than I did.”
In other words, I said there that if you are right then BOTH “Minnett” and I are wrong. You read it and then portray me as thinking: “ since I am ever correct then Minnett is “all wrong”“…
And when I pointed the difference between what I said and what you made out of it,
you, instead of owning up to it, hid behind words:
MAR(114) “of course we both “see the difference, right?” It is ‘righting the difference’ that is beyond us.”
And that after lecturing me on my …”wordage“. ;-)
[Remaining points I’ll address separately.]
I’m now hosting a “Climate Chat” club on the new social media app ClubHouse (CH). It’s an audio-only app that is in a radio call-in show format. There are millions of users from around the world discussing just about every subject. We cover all things climate including climate science, solutions, advocacy, environmental justice, policy and communications.
I like to feature experts in the above fields, so if anyone has research they would like to share with a diverse group of people from around the world who are interested in climate change, please let me know. I’m especially interested in getting different points of view and welcoming woman and people of color.
If you have suggestions for topics or speakers (including yourself), please contact me at ClimateChatClub (at) gmail (dot) com. There is no set schedule so we can accommodate your availability.
You do need an invitation to join and I can provide that to our guests. At this point, the CH app works only on iPhone but an Android version is coming in a month or two.
* Support the EU Green Deal
* Put all carbon fuels into #EUETS + social compensation
* Let cap decrease faster.
* Delete surplus allowances.
* Make importers buy allowances for embodied emissions (#CBAM)
Easy to understand. Works. Do.
#climatechange #energiewende
The global reduction of sulfur emissions from shipping poses a real world research opportunity to quantify the climate effects of changes in aerosol emissions and cloud seeding over oceans. Additional global warming (increase in net forcing) could be as high as 0.33 W/m² (very low level of certainty) or 0.25C° (at 0.75C / W/m²) from a reduction of the negative aerosol forcing in previous decades.
Sulfur aerosol emissions over seas and oceans have been largely mitigated through fuel sulfur limits regulation of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The impact on the global climate is highly uncertain and requires more attention in order to increase understanding of past, present and future climate change.
From 2020 onward there is a significant mitigation of SOx aerosol (precursor) emissions of 8.5 million Tg per year from IMO 2020 regulation and there is a total global reduction of SOx emissions over the seas and oceans of ~90% since 2010 (from IMO MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14 on fuel sulphur content for shipping or Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (EGCS) use).
Understanding the atmospheric and climatic effects of this regional and global reduction in emissions is crucial. Earlier research from Eyring et al. (2009) estimated the forcing of shipping in 2000 to be -0,33 W/m², with very low level of certainty (-0.67 – +0.03). Other studies show similar estimates or significantly lower when not taking into account cloud lifetime effects. Measurements show that due to higher levels of aromatic compounds in new fuels combustion leads to an increase in emissions of black carbon shipping. This combination of less cooling and more warming aerosols emitted over the oceans could significantly increase (or have already increased) the net anthropogenic forcing.
Responding to sidd @ 115 in last month’s UV thread.
Yes, I can see how that might be a way to measure thermal conductivity in liquids.
The measurements I was talking about in #111 were not an attempt to measure the thermal conductivity of water. We were trying to measure the thermal conductivity of freezing soils (temperatures in the range 0 to -5C), which presents a multitude of issues:
– fine-grained soils (silts, clays) at those temperatures still contain a lot of unfrozen water, in part due to capillary effects, but for a variety of reasons.
– the thermal conductivity is strongly dependent on the phase of water (liquid, solid) because ice has a much high conductivity than liquid water.
– the amount of unfrozen water is strongly dependent on temperature (less at colder temperatures), so any heating causes a change in the property you are trying to measure.
– any gradient in temperature also induces liquid water flow from warm to cold (the frost heave process), so any persistent temperature gradient causes mass transfer.
So, we needed a conductivity probe design and data analysis method that minimized thermal disturbance – short pulses of heat and watch the temperature decay back to equilibrium. The probe design was a few mm in diamater and about 20cm long (long enough to be treated mathematically as an infinite line source) with an internal heater and temperature sensor. Solid copper so it’s thermal conductivity was much higher than the surrounding soil.
We used plain water to see if we were getting reasonable results. Even with that short heat pulse methodology, water was too mobile without the Jello shot. It only took 1-2% gelatin to accomplish the task of solidifying the water, so we still basically had almost nothing but water.
Statistical climatology has passed an historic milestone :
1,207 years of cherry picking
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/03/sakuragate.html
Why should a rational person believe that we are currently experiencing a “climate crisis”?
Tom Nelson says (7) “Why should a rational person believe that we are currently experiencing a “climate crisis”?”
Assuming that person have done their homework and read the literature on the subject (could have started with the latest IPCC report), a less banal question would be: “how that person rationalizes his disbelief in climate crisis? “
re: MARodgers(114) [continuation of Piotr (1)]:
MAR(114) – “ Now @113 you appear to be saying that this paper is correct and perhaps that you are actually in agreement with “Minnett”.”
Huh? “ Now @113″, “perhaps”, “actually” ???? I have been “in agreement with “Minnett”” FROM THE BEGINNING of this discussion. That’s why I said that we BOTH can kill the metaphoric mosquito (the denialist claim relying on the surface microlayer being “insulated” from the mixed layer), and my ONLY reservation for calling on the JGR paper, was that it would have been an overkill (“ killing a mosquito with an advanced cannon“).
MAR(114) “Perhaps if you were to “go through the details of it,”
I don’t see the point:
First, and most important – NO NEED: to kill our denialist mosquito – we don’t need the details of their calculations, but only their assumptions, seen for instance in their Fig. 6. – there is a 0.1 mm thick TSL (thermal skin layer) AND there is gradient of temperature ACROSS it – which means that the heat flows from the mixed layer across the bottom of TSL and toward its top, and from there – into the air.
Ergo the top of TSL is not “insulated” from the mixed layer, as your and denier’s arguments require.
(The rest of the paper is about collection of the data to run this model and to calculate the magnitude of the FLUXES across the TSL under various wind conditions and various cloud cover (with larger cloud cover simulating the higher DWIR of a globally warmed world), and a such NOT NEEDED to the much simpler subject of this discussion (that top of TSL is NOT “insulated” from the mixed layer).)
Second, I don’t think it would be worth the time it would require – given how you have managed to misinterpret both the JGR paper and my (much simpler) posts so far.
Third, in the same sentence in which you extend the olive branch by proposing joint reading – you … can’t stop yourself from petty insinuations of my supposed vanity:
MAR (114); “which shouldn’t be too much to ask of one eons cleverer than I could ever imagine“. So forgive me if I don’t trust your sincerity.
UAH has reported its March TLT anomaly at a distinctly chilly -0.01ºC, the lowest anomaly since Sept 2018 and the coldest March since 2014.
On UAH TLT, Jan to Mar 2021 averages +0.1ºC which puts 2021 as the 12th warmest start to the year, with 2016 sitting in top spot with its Jan-Mar average at a toasty +0.59ºC.
Bob Loblaw: ice has a much higher [thermal] conductivity than liquid water
RC: Which was one of the points in the “arctic sea ice is a radiator, not an insulator” paper that only I seem to remember. Different timeline, I suppose.
I’m with Tom Nelson above. Just don’t see the crisis at all and feel like ‘deep ecology’ has made an open scientific question dogmatic. https://www.aier.org/article/inside-the-church-of-climate/
This is a science site run by some of the world’s finest, who have both the skills and the dedication to follow evidence, describe it, and evaluate what is going on.
Asserting that reality doesn’t exist is evidence of a lack of ability to use the five senses and exercise critical thinking. At this point, you don’t need “proof”, you need to get out of that hermetically sealed chamber of illusions and pay attention to the world’s weather, to toxic waste, to something – anything – beyond the horizons of the cult of blindness and delusion.
Robert L. Bradley @12,
In your OP that you link-to, you begin by asking the question “How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?” Such a question does not well describe AGW which overwhelmingly concerns the impact of warming that would result from rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Yet you answer this question as though CO2 were the cause of “the earth … increasingly polluted and … natural resources … being exhausted” and, without a hint of any climatological consideration, end by quoting climate change denier Alex Epstein so as to then brand AGW mitigation as anti-libertine.
As you fail to set out any climatological argument for unconstrained CO2 emissions, you are perhaps unaware/in-denial of the impact such a policy would have on our planet and on the future for humanity. Imagine CO2 was not warming the world but cooling it. We know what happens when the world cools a few degrees centigrade and this would probably cool down the arguments that a just a few degrees centigrade would have only a minor impact on humanity and its world.
But the world is warming and the problems that would cause if we allowed it are evidently too obscure for the likes of you to comprehend.
You tells us you “just don’t see the crisis at all” and kick off your comment @12 by saying you are “with Tom Nelson” who @7 provides a link to his webpage which sets out so much nonsense that debunking it all would be a herculean task. (Mind, decapitating it is quite a simple process. This paper, Collins et al (2019) ‘Centennial‐Scale SE Pacific Sea Surface Temperature Variability Over the Past 2,300 Years’, according to the first link in the first link, supports the position of swivel-eyed denialists.)
Perhaps you should ask somebody to explain AGW to you rather than mouthing off as though you know what you’re ranting about.
Why, god, why, do you allow the trolls to troll? We are soooo far past the time when dealing with them gave a positive return. We are past the tipping point on awareness. It serves zero purpose to allow them to continue the Big Lie. The Big Lie, as we *all* know, only benefits the liar.
I give you Trump as exhibit A.
Robert Bradley at 12:
All the cherry picked references in your Op-Ed piece are from before 2000. You need to update your article with current information. Cherry picking extreme quotes and saying that is the mainstream scientific position does not make sense. Are you a supporter of the insurrection in Washington since you are right wing?
We are looking at trillions of dollars of damage to the US economy from sea level rise. That does not include increasing storm and flooding damage inland or drought and fire damage. Millions of people worldwide are already climate refugees. How much damage do you need to pay for before you decide it is a crisis?
TN 7: Why should a rational person believe that we are currently experiencing a “climate crisis”?
BPL: Because of the mountains of empirical evidence to that effect.
I take it you don’t live in Miami.
RLB 12: I’m with Tom Nelson above. Just don’t see the crisis at all and feel like ‘deep ecology’ has made an open scientific question dogmatic.
BPL: Well, instead of getting your climate science from aier .org, why not try getting it from the peer-reviewed science literature, or at least from textbooks?
Piotr @9,
You say you “don’t see the point” for you to do what I suggest and “go through the details of it” (“it” being Wong & Minnett (2018) which you call ‘the JGR paper’). But if you do not “go through the details of it”, how can you assert so bravely that you are actually in agreement with Minnett and that you have been in agreement “FROM THE BEGINNING of this discussion”?
You defend not to “go through the details of it” by setting out three points of counter-argument.
☻ Your third point suggests you see my suggestion to “go through the details of it” as some sort of trick as you fear I do not make the suggestion with sincerity.
☻ Your second point suggests it would be a waste of time, not because you have nothing to learn but because in your analysis I have previously misrepresented both you and Wong & Minnett. Perhaps you fear that anything you learn would be too much for me to understand or to accept.
☻ And your first point returns to your “No need to shoot a mosquito with an advanced canon” argument. This argument does suggest some level of disagreement with Wong & Minnett in that you say this paper gives but “details” which are “not necessary” while Wong & Minnett (2018) say “It is … not clear how the greenhouse effect directly affects the ocean’s heat uptake in the upper 700 m of the ocean.” So is then the paper “not necessary” or is the situation “not clear”? To us denizens of reality these two appear mutually exclusive and I would suggest this is not the only point “FROM THE BEGINNING of this discussion” (eg @89UVMarch) that you have contradicted Wong & Minnett.
Thus I find your reluctance to “go through the details of it” as being particularly presumptuous of you.
RE. Robert Bradley @12
haha…Robert Bradley, of Enron fame, chimes up in support of another old fossil of the climate denying fossil fuel shill gang. Poor Bradley can only manage to earn an amoral living by supporting the dying fossil fuel industry. I suppose losers tend to gravitate to losing teams.
And the fossil fuel industry is losing.
Regardless of *belief* in science green energy is cheaper today in most of the world and these costs continue to decline rapidly. As for new generating capacity expected to go on line in the US this year 80% will be green, 4% nuclear, and only 16% natural gas. New coal is certainly dead and green is clearly on the rise.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416
Not only that, electric cars are without a doubt the future. Period. All major auto producers are moving in that direction regardless of government intervention (note Tesla sold over double last years first quarter volume first quarter this year with no government incentives.) Why? Because electric cars are simply better and the only impediment, cost, is declining rapidly.
As for government intervention in the *hoax* the API now endorses government backed market based solutions to the climate crisis as does the US Chamber of Commerce and Business Round Table.
“The risks of climate change are real,” API’s annual report.
haha, must be some mighty good hoax for those prestigious business organizations to get on board.
https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/environment/climate-change
https://www.uschamber.com/addressing-climate-change
https://s3.amazonaws.com/brt.org/Business-RoundtableAddressingClimateChangeReport.September2020.pdf
Bradley is just an old fossil fool of the fossil fuel industry.
Robert L. Bradley:
Lol. As a career disinformation professional, Mr. Bradley, what did you hope to accomplish here? Do you really expect any of us will be swayed by your transparently mercenary opinions? Not counting Tom Nelson, who appears to be a volunteer science-denier.
Tom Nelson at 7
It would appear you have your answer in many responses. There are so many Ivory Tower Dunning Kruger’s that are so entrenched in their dogma they refuse to even acknowledge the empirical evidence that counters their computer models.
It’s a long faith-based leap to get from trace atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas to we’re experiencing a CO2-induced climate crisis. It also requires a certain level of willful ignorance and/or disingenuity to not acknowledge that there is, in fact, considerable debate within the scientific community on the climate crisis thesis.
Very interesting. The need to promote disinformation presents a live member of the profiteering by lies class here, much more than a gadfly. For more detail, here:
https://www.desmogblog.com/robert-l-bradley-jr
The Antiscience Movement Is Escalating, Going Global and Killing Thousands – Rejection of mainstream science and medicine has become a key feature of the political right in the U.S. and increasingly around the world
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-antiscience-movement-is-escalating-going-global-and-killing-thousands/
MARodgers(19) You say you “don’t see the point” for you to do what I suggest and “go through the details of it” (“it” being Wong & Minnett (2018) which you call ‘the JGR paper’).
_This_ again? You have made this point ALREADY TWICE BEFORE, so why do it AGAIN? But since you can’t give it a rest – I have used the shortcut “Minnett”, because THATS’S HOW the person who … brought the Wong and Minnett into the discussion (JCH 81), has referred to it:
JCH(87) – “ I suspect Minnett would disagree
JCH(97) – ” Would Minnett propose something that would boil the oceans?
So go and lecture JCH about _his_ informal attribution.
MAR(19) But if you do not “go through the details of it”, how can you assert so bravely that you are actually in agreement with Minnett and that you have been in agreement “FROM THE BEGINNING of this discussion”?
Because it does not REQUIRE reading the DETAILS of their paper to see that they used the SAME MODEL of the heat flow as I do, and the same model as HAS BEEN USED FOR DECADES in oceanography. And it does not take any special “bravery” on my part to REMEMBER what I have written in this thread over the last few days.
MAR(19) Your third point suggests you see my suggestion to “go through the details of it” as some sort of trick as you fear I do not make the suggestion with sincerity.
because you ENDED your suggestion with “which shouldn’t be too much to ask of one eons cleverer than I could ever imagine“. These are not the words of an open-minded person, whose ego is not entangled in the outcome of the proposed discussion.
MAR(19) Perhaps you fear that anything you learn would be too much for me to understand or to accept.
You may be getting your logical panties in knots here – why would _I_ “fear” that _you_ don’t understand anything … _I_ would learn???
Are you saying that I am some empathic new-ager so deeply concerned (“fearing”) about … your “inability to understand or accept anything I learned? Thank you, MA, but you give me too much credit – I am not _that_ considerate…
MAR(19( Wong & Minnett (2018) say “It is … not clear how the greenhouse effect directly affects the ocean’s heat uptake in the upper 700 m of the ocean.”
Their is a QUANTITATIVE analysis, using the cloudiness as a proxy for greenhouse effect and quantifying its effects under different wind conditions. As such, this analysis is UNNECESSARY to disprove the much simpler denialist claim that the top of the thermal skin layer (TSL) is “insulated” from the mixed layers.
The absurd of the deniers’ claim is easy to demonstrate even with a few sentences,
so NO NEED to use the “Howitzer” (Wong and Minnett) to kill a “mosquito”(MARodgers).
But if you still insist on the former – I already pointed you my (9) to their Fig 6, which is a THEORETICAL curve of the heat flux, BEFORE any original quantitative calculations are presented by Wong and Minnett.
Finally, Minnett himself has disproven your and deniers argument long before the
details of Wong and Minnett paper. See the OTHER link introduced by JCH (81):
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/ In it, for instance:
Minnett RC(Sept. 2006): “ Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux“.
If you and deniers are right that the top of the skin layer is “insulated” from the mixed layer, then there would be NO “flux” to be “reduced” in the first place.
And before you say that you didn’t mean a “perfect” insulation – the insulation would have to be STONG ENOUGH to falsify my and Minnett’s argument, i.e. strong enough to prevent MOST (ALL?) of the ocean surplus of 190W/m2 from solar radiation, from leaving the ocean. But if it does prevent it, then a 50-m mixed layer boils in 3 years if all 190W/m2 were blocked, in 6 years if only half of it are blocked by a “50% effective insulation”.
But since the ocean is not boiling fish soup – neither seems to be the case. Which falsifies your and deniers claim. By their fruits (de mer? ;-)) you shall know how good is their “insulation”.
Worst apocalypse. Ever.
Undeniably.
Lots of criticism. I could not cover everything in that one post except that just because change is anthropogenic and not natural, that means it is bad. The Malthusians have substituted ‘livable climate’ as a depleting resource.
Here is another post that questions the climate alarm: https://www.aier.org/article/climate-alarmism-reconsidered/
And one on the physical limits of renewables: https://www.aier.org/article/w-s-jevons-1865-on-the-limits-to-renewables/
On Enron, I fought against the company’s fake profit-centered climate alarmism http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/enron/
Lots here–I am not a ‘troll’ but just believe I have a superior case that the climate models are climate alarmists are exaggerating–and all of us can be more optimistic and don’t have to ruin our earth with wind turbines and solar panels.
Regarding the ridiculous article “inside the church of climate” posted by Robert Bradley. The attempts to mock environmentalism do rather backfire because the cut and paste creates quite a good case for environmentalism and climate mitigation. So Bradlys critique is totally inept.
Couple of other comments on that article. Once again the denialists confuse weather and climate. Warming homes with various energy sources to protect us from the so called dangerous ever changing climate are in fact protecting us from the “weather”.
Freidrich Hayek is being hopelessly misinterpreted. He was alleging that governments aren’t as good as determining optimal allocation of resources as private sector free markets. Read his book a few years ago. It’s mercifully short. He never claimed governments shouldn’t deal with emergencies, or regulate industry relating to things like health and safety, and that countries shouldn’t cooperate for example to coordinate carbon tax rates etc, etc. Why anyone cant work that out beats me.
CCHolley,
If I remember correctly, prestigious business leaders are exactly 0 for 10000 or so with regard to making wise, as opposed to profitable decisions with regard to the climate. Yet you claim their wisdom as evidence because….?
Lots of criticism, some constructive. I have been a student of the science for several decades, beginning with a long consulting relationship with Gerald North of Texas A&M University back when I was at Enron. My thoughts/interpretation of climate science is summarized here: https://www.aier.org/article/climate-alarmism-reconsidered/.
@27 “Lots here–I am not a ‘troll’ but just believe I have a superior case that the climate models are climate alarmists are exaggerating”
Then why not submit your “beliefs” to Nature or some other reputable science journal? Or are your “beliefs” based on any sort of publishable science?
“don’t have to ruin our earth with wind turbines and solar panels.”
Personally I prefer both to oil slicks and refinery emissions. But your reality varies, I guess.
How very droll to see Bob Bradley playing the role of a card-carrying Chicago School economist when the closest he got to v. Mises & Hayek was a diploma mill that , along with Bradley’s worthy tutor Hans Sennholz, claimed to have everyone from Yehudi Menuhin to Buckminiister Fuller on the faculty.
Trouble was that along with its fantasy faculty, International University had no classrooms, no library , and no national, let alone international accreditation, making its graduates ideally suited for firms like Enron, which Bob joined a year after his alma mater evaporated into a thin cloud of grift. Bob spent spent sixteen years forging talking points for his fellow Enron Directors, and wasn’t laid off until the Feds indicted some , and pulled the plug on the shenanigans of the others.
http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Memo-Ken-Karas-to-Bob-KellyEnron-Renewables.pdf
Joe Wellborn:
No.
This is the wrong place to promote disingenuous arguments. People come here for legitimate science; you’re wasting your energy here.
Well, it *is* “long”. WG I took on the order of 15 chapters, 600 pages, and 30,000 citations to cover the distance, last time out–just approximating OTTOMH.
But is was more of a determined trudge over methodically placed stepping stones than a “leap,” and there were boatloads of both evidence and scientific skepticism all along the way.
Is there Still “considerable debate?” Sure.
But looks to me there’s a lot more “how bad & how soon” than there is “yes/no.”
@ “there is, in fact, considerable debate within the scientific community on the climate crisis thesis.”
Oh? Care to elucidate us on the specific current scientific issues with respect to said “thesis” which are receiving said “considerable” debate in the scientific literature and at conferences at the present time?
(Hint: There is no present “debate” in the literature on whether climate change is occurring. Nor is there any “debate” that there are now and will be increasing serious costs.)
You do read the current literature and keep up with contemprary conferences, right?
Question for you: Is is a “long, faith-based leap to get from a trace” amount of 400 ppm HCN in the bloodstream to dead as a doornail? (Actually the LD50 is only a fraction of even that “trace” amount.) “Trace” means “very small”. It does NOT mean “inconsequential” (but good propaganda try there!). Only an idiot would make that mistake with cyanide, or with carbon dioxide.
Liars and scam artists, regardless of political leanings, hate science because it exposes their lies and scams. Discredit science, and the sheep will be led easily to slaughter with promises of a capitalist/communist/glibertatian/Insert-religion-here paradise.
Science is the corrective lens that lets us see the world clearly and without self-delusion.
JW 23: It’s a long faith-based leap to get from trace atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas to we’re experiencing a CO2-induced climate crisis.
BPL: It’s not a “leap of faith” at all; it’s a matter of radiation physics. Please pick up a textbook on the subject, read through it, and work the problems. I’d suggest either Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres” or Petty’s “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation.”
JW: It also requires a certain level of willful ignorance and/or disingenuity to not acknowledge that there is, in fact, considerable debate within the scientific community on the climate crisis thesis.
BPL: No, there is not. There is overwhelming consensus that global warming is real, is man-made, and is the biggest threat ever to civilization outside of nuclear war. It requires a certian level of willful ignorance and/or disingenuity to not acknowledge that.
TTJ 26: Worst apocalypse. Ever. // Undeniably.
BPL: Word post here. Ever. // Undeniably.
RLB 27: the climate models are climate alarmists
BPL: They are?
RLB: are exaggerating–and all of us can be more optimistic and don’t have to ruin our earth with wind turbines and solar panels.
BPL: Those things don’t ruin the Earth. Global warming ruins the Earth.
Happy Easter, y’all! Christos anestay!
Very Skeptical to “Crisis”
The most compelling evidence a layman can use to determine veracity here, is the complete unwillingness of one of the parties to engage in open debate.
While the Skeptical community has been pleading for open debate for years.
Something is rotten here.
The Obvious is that the Climate Scare monger community is frightened of being exposed in an open forum.
The rational human would ask “Are they hiding something?”
Richard Caldwell @29
Understand the cynicism, but where, pray tell, did I ever mention “their wisdom as evidence” of anything?
My point was simply that businesses, including the oil industry (sans Koch), are no longer denying the climate crises and no longer promoting denialism. Instead they are now supporting climate action albeit action that is, in their opinion, in their best (profit) interest. The business reality is that the fossil fuel industry is a dying industry and no longer worth protecting, regardless of whether or not there is actually a climate crises, because now there are better and cheaper alternatives. That is the simple truth.
Bradley supports a loser.
24
Susan, Sci. Am. has run some rather silly political rants of late, but Hotez’s spin on Soviet history takes the cake.
While Lysenko claimed mathematics had no place in biology, Hotez’s idea of history seems to have no place of chronology: millions perished in Stalins programmed famines a decade before Lysenko came to power.
Happy Easter anyway:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/04/can-easter-bunny-geoengineering-save.html
Robert L. Bradley Jr. referenced two URL-s that downplayed the risks of AGW. The author of the URL-s is the American Institute for Economics (AIER). According to Wikipedia, that institute also
Issued the “”Great Barrington Declaration”, arguing for herd immunity;
Argued against the effectiveness of mask wearing;
Argued against social distancing; and
Receives money from the Charles Koch Foundation.
As a consequence, listening to AIER isn’t worth my time.
“Once again the denialists confuse weather and climate.” – nigelj
Uh oh. Didn’t get the memo?
“A few years ago talking about weather and [global warming] in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists.
The tumbling of records has also prompted conversations in the scientific community to turn a corner.
Previously, ‘weather is not climate’ was the mantra, but now, the additional boost from greenhouse gasses was influencing every event.” – Professor Will Steffen, Australia’s leading climate scientist.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/trends-create-angry-summer-20130303-2fefl.html
Joe Wellborn @ 23 wrote:
I am unaware of any peer-reviewed, scientific literature that supports this assertion.
Do you have references, or are you just making it up?
BPL #40,
Not until May 2. If you are going to indulge in cultural appropriation, as they say, at least get the date right.
NW at 41:
“The most compelling evidence a layman can use to determine veracity here, is the complete unwillingness of one of the parties to engage in honest debate”.
There, I corrected your comment to reflect the reality of how dishonest AGW “skeptics” are. There is plenty of honest debate in the peer reviewed scientific literature if you would only care to look.
NW–
Except that scientific debate happens in the scientific literature–not some stage hired for the night, and not for TV cameras or webcams.
Apr. 3, 2021 421.21 ppm
Apr. 2, 2020 415.60 ppm
1 Year Change 5.61 ppm (1.35%)
I think the MLO numbers are out there again. This number is showing more unusual yoy increases than it has in the years I have been following the MLO number.
The sky is not falling, but I think something is happening that is causing unusual peaks in the measurements at MLO.
Co2.earth