Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Exactly how much climate science does President Trump understand?

Exactly how much climate science does President Trump understand?

The data suggest substantially more than some of the leading “climate change” proponents!

https://petapixel.com/2017/01/21/president-trumps-official-portrait/

Because of my Legal Insurrection coverage of climate change, in the wake of the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, I was asked directly: Exactly how much climate science does President Trump understand.

Like any true science, climatology is filled with highly technical terms, professional jargon, complex mathematics, and a myriad of other aspects that are challenging to understand and master. For example, a talk by Dr. William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, shows the discussion included the variability of carbon dioxide levels through history and flaws in the computer models used related to lack of cloud cover influence on temperature.

Demeaning assertions about President Trump’s level of science understanding abound in the establishment media and with entrenched politicos.

US President Donald Trump is ignorant of the science behind climate change, former secretary of state John Kerry has said, in the wake of Trump’s announcement to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

…“And I will say to you if you truly understand the science, if you have done your due diligence and homework, there is no way that you cannot conclude that there’s an urgency to doing something. And you would not pull out of Paris,” he stated.

So, in my quest for determining exactly how much science President Trump understands, I interviewed those who have actually talked to the man himself: Happer and Trump-supporter Terry Lee Ebert Mendozza. I surmised that this would alleviate media distortion.

Happer’s assessment shows that President Trump has a good grasp of the technical information information related to climate science.

I had a half hour or so to talk to Mr. Trump about science in January. I found that he knew a lot more than you might guess. His uncle, John Trump, a professor of physics at MIT, apparently had a big influence on young Donald Trump. We talked about John Trump’s work on electrostatic accelerators. I was surprised at Mr. Trump’s good grasp of some details of this esoteric subject, for example, the high and potentially dangerous voltages applied to accelerators.

We did not spend much time talking about climate, but Mr. Trump commented that he thought solar energy might make sense in Arizona or New Mexico, but not so much in New England. He was absolutely right. Mr. Trump asked good questions about science, listened to my answers, and he had sensible followup questions.

I also asked Mendozza, who is a sharp real estate investor herself and frequently visits Mar-a-lago, how much climate science she thought President Trump understood.

“President Trump is an extremely sharp man. He is reading all hours of the day and night, and I have seen a few science digests and articles in the stack. He loves to learn, and I don’t think there is one subject beyond his grasp. Additionally, he is very astute about people, and delegates power to those who work in the field and are well qualified to implement policy.”

Three specific data points can be included with these personal observations that confirm that President Trump has a robust understanding of the exact nature of “climate change” science:

1) A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, and show the the entire narrative can be filed under #FakeScience.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

2) The Associated Press is shocked that President Trump is focused on battling regulations instead of climate change….seemingly unaware of the connection between the two.

Trump is waging war against efforts to curb U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. He’s done that through executive orders targeting climate change programs and regulations, massive proposed spending cuts and key appointments such as Scott Pruitt as chief of the Environmental Protection Agency.

3) Pennsylvania just opened up a new coal mine.

So how much science does President Donald Trump understand?

The data confirm that President Trump likely knows more about science than Bill Nye the Science Guy, John Kerry, and California’s Governor Jerry Brown (who just made his own accord with China).

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Bill Nye the Science Guy is NOT a scientist. He is a mechanical engineer with a degree from Cornell. Current requirements for that degree show that he would have taken exactly one chemistry course and NO biology/climatology/environmental science courses, which leaves him markedly unqualified to postulate on “climate change”, particularly the idea that “climate change” is caused by the activities of human beings.

http://www.mae.cornell.edu/academics/undergrad/memajor/

I, on the other hand, am a medical scientist with countless courses in the fields of chemistry and biology, membership in applicable scientific societies and teaching experience at both the secondary and university levels. I can absolutely assure you that there is NO SUCH THING as “settled science”, never has been and never will be and that the CO2 the greenies go on and on about is a natural part of the atmospheric balance that makes life on earth possible at all, never mind the byproduct of all animal respiration. With every breath you exhale you send CO2 into the atmosphere. And a good thing it is, since the plants that make the oxygen that you need to live require that CO2 to do so.

    Granny: CO2 the greenies go on and on about is a natural part of the atmospheric balance that makes life on earth possible at all, never mind the byproduct of all animal respiration. With every breath you exhale you send CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Quite so. However, the carbon you exhale into the atmosphere was recently removed from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis, yielding a net change of zero. That is, animal respiration is carbon neutral. This is unlike the burning of fossil fuels, which adds carbon to the atmosphere, which had been sequestered for millions of years. The result is an increase in atmospheric CO2, and a resultant increase in the greenhouse effect.

    Granny: I can absolutely assure you that there is NO SUCH THING as “settled science”, never has been and never will be

    In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. — Stephen Jay Gould

      tom swift in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 10:08 am

      This is unlike the burning of fossil fuels

      Dead wrong. The molecules aren’t “tagged”; one CO2 is identical to any other. All are food for plants.

        tom swift: The molecules aren’t “tagged”; one CO2 is identical to any other.

        Not quite. Fossil fuels exhibit a different isotope signature. However, this doesn’t affect its activity in the carbon cycle.

        tom swift: All are food for plants.

        Sure, however, with the natural carbon cycle, the concentration of carbon is relatively stable (though varies by season). Adding carbon from sequestered fossil fuels *increases* the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and therefore increases the greenhouse effect.

          tom swift in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 10:22 am

          Fossil fuels exhibit a different isotope signature.

          Which is a probabilistic distribution. It still doesn’t tag individual molecules even slightly.

          tom swift: Which is a probabilistic distribution.

          That’s right. And it allows us to show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 12:08 pm

          “And it allows us to show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic”

          You poor deluded ignorant commie, you are as dumb as a bag of bricks. It shows no such thing.

          goodspkr in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 12:16 pm

          The problem with your position is that you simply assume the alarmists hypothesis is correct. It relies on not simply CO2, but on feedback from increased CO2 raising the temperature which increases the water vapor in the atmosphere which the alarmist assume will actually breaking up the low level clouds and forming high level cirrus clouds that will trap more heat. This in turn will raise the temperature even more and eventually (although the more extreme AGW supporters see this as happening soon) you will hit tipping points where permafrost starts to melt, bogs start to warm and all of these give up more and more greenhouse gases causing a runaway greenhouse effect which will raise the temperature even more, melt the ice at the poles and raise the ocean levels by 20 to 30 feet. It is from this that we find the disaster scenarios we keep hearing about in the press.

          Skeptics also see CO2 as increasing water vapor, but they see this water vapor acting as a net negative feedback. Rather than break up low level clouds, skeptics see the water vapor adding to the low, thick clouds (such as stratocumulus) which primarily reflect incoming solar radiation back into space. This would negate the formation of a hot spot and cool the planet. In addition, these low level clouds will cause rain to fall which also acts as a cooling mechanism to the planet.

          The science regarding clouds is not well understood. We simply don’t know exactly what will happen with additional water vapor in the atmosphere, but the affect could be significant. A 1 percent change in clouds could account for all of the shifts in climate over the past 2000 years.

          goodsprk: It relies on not simply CO2, but on feedback from increased CO2 raising the temperature which increases the water vapor in the atmosphere which the alarmist assume will actually breaking up the low level clouds and forming high level cirrus clouds that will trap more heat.

          Well, this sub-thread concerns the difference between animal respiration, which is carbon-neutral, and burning fossil fuels, which is not.

          The next step is to understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which will directly raise the surface temperature of the Earth about 1°C per doubling of CO2. Because warmer air can hold more water vapor, this amplifies the warming effect. The amount of warming is called climate sensitivity. There are variuos ways to estimate climate sensitivity, studies of volcanic eruptions, ice ages, or measurements of Earth’s energy budget. These different measures put the likely value of climate sensitivity at about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.

          goodsprk: Skeptics also see CO2 as increasing water vapor, but they see this water vapor acting as a net negative feedback.

          The empirical data contradicts that position. For instance, see Clement et al., Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback, Science 2009.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 3:13 pm

          “The empirical data contradicts that position”

          All your data is fake.

          Barry: All your data is fake.

          In fact, scientists work very hard to collect data related to climate science. In this case, check out the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, ISCCP.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 8:14 pm

          “In fact”

          In fact, everything you say is a lie. Only dumb commies like yourself for it. You are an uneducated bumbling halfwit.

          tom swift in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 10:25 am

          By itself, that says nothing about climate, any more than the cash in my bank account says about the stock market. They’re both easily and exactly measurable numbers; it’s the causal correlation between the two which is elusive. And without that correlation, they’re all just numbers with no significance.

          tom swift: By itself, that says nothing about climate

          The topic was Granny’s claim about animal respiration and its relationship to atmospheric CO2. The fact is that animal respiration is carbon-neutral, but the burning of fossil fuels increases the atmospheric concentration of CO2, a greenhouse gas.

          Are you suggesting CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

          mailman in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 10:50 am

          Temperature rise has always lagged behind Co2 rise (by several hundred years). That was settled science UNTIL that settled science became inconvenient and the wrong kind of settled science.

          mailman: Temperature rise has always lagged behind Co2 rise (by several hundred years).

          What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!

          In any case, it’s because of positive feedbacks. An increase of atmospheric CO2 causes ocean warming, which causes a release of dissolved CO2, which causes additional warming.

          rdmdawg in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 12:44 pm

          Have you been assigned by someone to troll this blog? You’re doing a terrible job of it.

          Joe-dallas in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 2:00 pm

          Zach –

          “In any case, it’s because of positive feedbacks. An increase of atmospheric CO2 causes ocean warming, which causes a release of dissolved CO2, which causes additional warming.”

          Give us a hint on these positive feedbacks

          Why didnt these positive feedbacks kick in during any of the prior warming periods with the results the warmists are predicting with the Mann made warming?

          Joe-dallas: Give us a hint on these positive feedbacks

          We just did.

          Joe-dallas: Why didnt these positive feedbacks kick in during any of the prior warming periods

          They did.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 3:17 pm

          Y’all are arguing with a paid commie that will spread the commie prog lies as far as they can. They get their talking points and go on blogs trying to appear respectable. They are just liars. Comrade Zach has no knowledge about which he speaks, no education in climate science, meteorology, gelogy, or physics.

          Everything he puts out are the copy/paste lies of the progs he works for.

          Just so you’ll know.

          Joe-dallas in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 3:48 pm

          Give us a hint on these positive feedbacks

          Why didnt these positive feedbacks kick in during any of the prior warming periods with the results the warmists are predicting with the Mann made warming?

          Zach – answer the entire question –

          Hint – none of the prior warming periods had anything remotely resembling the positive feedbacks predicted by the warmists

          Joe-dallas: Why didnt these positive feedbacks kick in during any of the prior warming periods with the results the warmists are predicting with the Mann made warming?

          As already answered, the feedbacks worked the same then as they do now. The rules of physics haven’t changed. If you don’t think is answering your question, try to rephrase the question.

          Joe-dallas: none of the prior warming periods had anything remotely resembling the positive feedbacks predicted by the warmists

          Of course they did. There is not a single climate equilibrium point, and the Earth appears to oscillate between ice ages and ice-free ages.

          Joe-dallas in reply to Zachriel. | June 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm

          Joe-dallas: Why didnt these positive feedbacks kick in during any of the prior warming periods with the results the warmists are predicting with the Mann made warming?

          Zach – answer the second part of the question – you have acknowledged the physics havent changed – so why would possitive feedbacks react differently than before which is what the warmists are predicting.

          with the results the warmists are predicting with the Mann made warming?

          Joe-dallas: so why would possitive feedbacks react differently than before which is what the warmists are predicting.

          They don’t react differently. If atmospheric CO2 increases, it tends to warm the oceans. Warmer oceans absorb less CO2, which leads to higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 than would otherwise occur.

          This is an important mechanism in geological history. Somewhat simplified, CO2 is emitted by volcanism, then removed by ocean scrubbing of silicates. If something triggers a cool spell, such as an orbital variation reducing incident sunlight, then water freezes at the poles, which increases the Earth’s albedo, while the cooler oceans absorb more CO2, reducing the greenhouse effect. This causes additional cooling and an ice age. Over geological times, volcanic activity continues to add CO2 to the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect, but the ice reduces the scrubbing action of the oceans, allowing CO2 to accumulate. The ice caps begin to retreat, decreasing Earth’s albedo, while the warmer oceans absorb less CO2, leading to an ice-free age.

          The positive feedbacks tend to push the Earth into oscillating between two different configurations.

      Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 10:13 am

      More BS from the commie.
      Don’t stray from the only science you know, the science of lying. You do that well.

    tom swift in reply to Granny. | June 12, 2017 at 10:18 am

    He is a mechanical engineer with a degree from Cornell.

    While I like dumping on Warmunists as much as anybody, this education is nothing to dismiss lightly. He’ll almost certainly know far more about the topic than 99.9% of the people opining about it today.

    I have degrees in ME myself, and also degrees in Physics. The science is the same; so is the math. The methodology isn’t very different. The divergence is really philosophical. And, knowing what I spent many years learning, I think if I wanted a useful answer to a question about the workings of the physical universe, I’d be more likely to get it from the engineer. The physicist is likely to take your money and tell you more study is needed. The engineer will take your money too, but he’ll give you the best answer that amount of money can buy. (Of course, he can still be wrong.)

      Joe-dallas in reply to tom swift. | June 12, 2017 at 10:48 am

      I have to go partly with tom on this one – ME/ EE – etc are basically a subset of science – using science to create practical applications.

      Though he left boeing at age 31, after inventing/developing a hydraulic resounce suppressor for the 747 or was at least part of the team that developed the suppressor. Leaving the professional (or any profession ) at such an early age would normally indicate a lower skill level in that profession –

      In summary – a mixed conclusion on Bill Nye’s science apptitude.

        mailman in reply to Joe-dallas. | June 12, 2017 at 11:08 am

        I guess it just depends on what he left for (career advancement elsewhere)?

        However given his slavish devotion and outright hostility to anyone who dares question the religion of Mann Made Global Warming ™ it suggests his leaving Boeing at 31 wasn’t for career advancement?

      Cleetus in reply to tom swift. | June 13, 2017 at 6:33 am

      First of all, engineering is the practical application of science. There is an enormous difference between performing research into the unknown where you have to have all the proper controls, know how to correctly collect the data, how to interpret the data, how to confirm your results, and so forth, as does a scientist as opposed to an engineer who takes known information and then uses it to create something useful for the public. Having been a research chemist for 35+ years, having been married to an engineer for decades, and having taught at an “engineering” school, I can tell you with certainty that the difference between scientists and engineers is not only the courses they take, but it is how they think and approach problem solving. Most engineers have a very difficult time with uncertainty and the frustrations with the unknowns found in research tends to drive them over the edge. It almost killed my wife when she tried for her masters and vowed ever since to never do research again. (Q: How do you turn an engineer into a quivering mass of protoplasm. A: Look them in the eye and say “Eh, let’s just wing it and see what happens.”)
      >
      That being said, you do not need to understand science to see the fallacy of global warming. Take for example the behavior of two populations of people.
      >
      In population A, you have people that are always talking about a potential future where modern life is all but impossible. Everything is guilt about how we are destroying the planet so we must do something now. They suggest drastic measures that would reduce the rate of CO2 emissions to that of 30 years ago as a solution while failing to show their logic flaws such as how if global warming was an issue 30 years ago, then how could us going back to the level of emissions then solve anything? Additionally, they seem incapable to understand the enormous sums of money and other costs associated with getting our emissions to that of 30 years ago. This is the same population who has refused to release their data or computer codes, talk among themselves on how to avoid FOIA laws compelling them to release their data (using computer “crashes”), and so forth. This same population routinely falls back on ad hominem attacks whenever the science is questioned and actively belittles those “deniers” who do not agree with them. They even go to the extent of leveling lawsuits against “deniers”, state how “deniers” should be jailed, and work to get “deniers” fired or otherwise removed from their employment for daring to question the science.
      >
      Population B makes no spectacular claim. They report their work, make their raw data and analyzing tools publically available, and, when pressed in a debate, they focus on data and research results, not ad hominem attacks. They communicate openly and freely and they do not endlessly revise their data by massaging it into submission. Instead of pronouncing doom and gloom about climate change, they emphasize how we need to understand a number of issues more clearly and then proceed to enumerate those issues, what needs to be understood, and why they are so important.
      >
      Just by their behavior, population A’s behavior is that of those who appear dishonest while population B appears to be honest for they have nothing to hide. Is there really anything else you need to know?

    RasMoyag in reply to Granny. | June 13, 2017 at 11:08 am

    Bill Nye is not a “scientist”. OK. Let’s define a scientist as someone who has a Phd or DSc in a hard science – not including social work, psychology, medicine, anthropology. Does a Phd in mathematics make me a scientist? So what if Nye is not a scientist? He has spent his working life talking about science, trying to understand science, and trying to make science interesting and important to everyone. That alone is significant and compares wonderfully to the non-existent science sections of the NYT and WP! And just because his undergraduate education is in engineering, that doesn’t make him wrong or a liar. Can we please get over the silliness of attempting to denigrate Nye because of his early education.

      Barry in reply to RasMoyag. | June 13, 2017 at 6:40 pm

      “Can we please get over the silliness of attempting to denigrate Nye because of his early education.”

      No.

      He is wrong and a liar.

American Human | June 12, 2017 at 9:24 am

Anyone who has ever flown long distance over the earth during daylight hours can, using a macro-approach, easily understand, I believe, why climate alarmists are the ultimate in ego driven scientists.
The Earth is so vast as to be un-comprehended from the view that a model can predict the future of temperature changes and climate.
A brief study of Chaos Theory can put to bed anyone’s belief in man-made climate change. The old statement about a butterfly flaps its wings in San Francisco and it rains in NYC is true. There are an un-countable number of random things that happen each hour of each day that affect, not just weather but any number of things. How can a model that only takes into account a million initial conditions account for the ten billion billion other initial conditions that may be so far down in the weeds but have an enormous affect on the outcome.
Other questions:
1 – who says that the temperature we have now is ideal and should never change?
2 – who makes those decisions for us?
3 – Even if the climate is changing can the 5% or less affect from humans be making it happen?
4 – These questions will never be addressed by Algore or Leo DeCpario (the other expert).
5 – Even the most hardened climate alarmists will agree that if everything in the Paris Accord were adopted we would not see any change in the amount of change, only a massive transfer of wealth.

    American Human: The Earth is so vast as to be un-comprehended from the view that a model can predict the future of temperature changes and climate.

    If only there were some way to reach reasonable albeit tentative conclusions based on limited information.

    American Human: A brief study of Chaos Theory can put to bed anyone’s belief in man-made climate change.

    The existence of chaos does not mean we can’t reach some reasonable conclusions about the future. For instance, the average temperature in Paris will probably be warmer in summer than winter.

    American Human: How can a model that only takes into account a million initial conditions account for the ten billion billion other initial conditions that may be so far down in the weeds but have an enormous affect on the outcome.

    While how heat is distributed through the climate system is highly complex, that the earth’s surface is experiencing greenhouse warming is not in serious doubt.

    American Human: who says that the temperature we have now is ideal and should never change?

    That’s not the issue, but rapid anthropogenic greenhouse warming.

    American Human: Even the most hardened climate alarmists will agree that if everything in the Paris Accord were adopted we would not see any change in the amount of change, only a massive transfer of wealth.

    That is not correct.

      Liz in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 2:19 pm

      Really? you give us links to Wikipedia and Vox?

        Liz: Really? you give us links to Wikipedia and Vox?

        Really? you wave your hands rather than arguing that the underlying information is incorrect?

        Scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

        Data underlying CO2 emissions and the Paris Agreement.

      Gunstar1 in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 2:56 pm

      Climate models do not predict the future, they project the current climate into the future. Individual runs are vastly different, which does not make much sense if they are so well programmed. If any of those variables change in the future, the outcome will change.

      Simply saying we know what the surface is doing doesn’t mean much when in fact it is the highly complex heat transfer which is the question.

      Dismissing the stable climate question just shows what is wrong with climate research. Who says that the world wouldn’t actually be better if it was a bit warmer? It sure is better now than when it was colder.

      Since CO2 has a logarithmic correlation to temp, take a look at what the Paris agreement would do to the actual temperature projections. If it was met by all signing nations by 2030 and held there until 2100, the temperature would be 0.3F cooler than doing nothing. This is what people are griping at Trump for. This is what Trillions of dollars will be spent on, for 0.3F. I would call that a massive transfer of wealth for no change.

        Gunstar1: Individual runs are vastly different, which does not make much sense if they are so well programmed.

        There is some uncertainly in climate projections, including the degree of global warming to expect. Most estimates are in the range of 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.

        Gunstar1: Who says that the world wouldn’t actually be better if it was a bit warmer?

        A bit warmer is okay, but rapid warming of several degrees would be highly disruptive to humans and ecosystems.

        Gunstar1: If it was met by all signing nations by 2030 and held there until 2100, the temperature would be 0.3F cooler than doing nothing.

        Except that the Paris Agreement includes additional reductions after 2030.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 3:21 pm

          Wait comrade, I thought we were supposed to be under water by now? Or was it massive starvation? No, maybe… I got it, we’d be out of oil by now. No, No, that’s not it, it’s, it’s, got it, a new ice age – global cooling, that’s it.

          Gunstar1 in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 4:26 pm

          Zachriel: There is some uncertainly in climate projections, including the degree of global warming to expect. Most estimates are in the range of 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.

          That is estimated climate sensitivity, not the individual model projections. I mean the individual model projections themselves and not the average of the average of the average of the data. That does tend to smooth things out, but yet some still can’t even get within that window.

          Zachriel: A bit warmer is okay, but rapid warming of several degrees would be highly disruptive to humans and ecosystems.

          Exactly, a bit warmer is ok. How much more is not ok? No one actually knows. The business as usual projection has already deviated from our current real world temperature. People want to spend trillions of dollars before taking the time to even make sure that the 3+ degree projections are even remotely possible.

          Zachriel: Except that the Paris Agreement includes additional reductions after 2030.

          No it doesn’t. The agreement includes a pledge to reductions by 2030. There was an agreement that they would get together in 2020 and 2025 to try to sign another agreement to more cuts after that (roadmap to 2050). Agreeing to have more meetings is not the same thing as including reductions in the Agreement itself.

          Gunstar1: I mean the individual model projections themselves and not the average of the average of the average of the data.

          The projections depend on climate sensitivity.

          Gunstar1: How much more is not ok?

          There are signs that the current warming is already approaching too much. There is a long period before the climate system reaches equilibrium, so even if humans stopped emitting greenhouse gases, the Earth will continue to warm for some time.

          Gunstar1: People want to spend trillions of dollars before taking the time to even make sure that the 3+ degree projections are even remotely possible.

          It costs less to mitigate earlier rather than later, and it will cause less permanent damage to the environment. The energy and transportation infrastructure gets replaced every 50 years or so, so upgrading it as it is replaced is a reasonable response.

          Spreading the cost over decades will make the problem manageable. Assuming modest 2% growth rate, the world will produce several quadrillion dollars over the next 50 years.

          Of course, it will become unmanageable if people wait until too much warming is locked into the climate system. That’s the advantage of science, though; it gives humanity foresight.

          Zachriel: Spreading the cost over decades will make the problem manageable. Assuming modest 2% growth rate, the world will produce several quadrillion dollars over the next 50 years.

          Yea, except that the Paris agreement mandates the changes be implemented and completed by 2030. That’s not “decades” away, certainly not “50 years” away. That’s a decade away.

          So the financial side of the problem is significantly larger and (dare I say it? — yes) more complex, with far more unknown variables, than you seem to give it credit for. “Assuming modest 2% growth rate” is assuming — and oversimplifying — quite a bit.

          A common trait of political-activist “scientists” is assuming that their discipline is complex and nuanced, and everyone else’s — in this case, macroeconomics — is simple and easy to predict. That’s almost always a false assumption, just like “solving” a dairy management problem by first assuming spherical cows of uniform density living in a vacuum.

          Archer: Yea, except that the Paris agreement mandates the changes be implemented and completed by 2030.

          The Heritage Foundation estimated a cost to the U.S. of about $80 billion per year. Other analysts put the cost at about half that. Of course, this has to be balanced against the cost of inaction.

          Archer: “Assuming modest 2% growth rate” is assuming — and oversimplifying — quite a bit.

          The current global GDP growth rate is 3%. Mature economies typically grow a bit slower. Even with a zero percent growth rate, the world can still be expected to produce several quadrillion dollars over the next 50 years.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 13, 2017 at 9:43 am

          More comrade commie committee Zach BS.

      goodspkr in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 3:29 pm

      You seem to want to summarize the objections to AGW. But you leave off the most important one–the failure of the models.

      The models are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the molecule that seems to control the climate. We use models instead of experiments because the climate is simply too complex to be able to test with experiments. Now if the science is settled, that would indicate that we understand the main factors that effect our climate and if we put this understanding to use in creating our models, we should come close to what has happened to the climate in the recent past. We haven’t. We’ve failed miserably in this regard. Dr. Judith Curry notes “The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level” This means the hypothesis upon which these models have been built is wrong and should be abandoned.

        goodspkr: The models are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the molecule that seems to control the climate.

        It’s one of many factors.

        goodspkr: Now if the science is settled, that would indicate that we understand the main factors that effect our climate and if we put this understanding to use in creating our models, we should come close to what has happened to the climate in the recent past.

        Over appropriate time-scales, the models are within the margin of error of observations. The last few years have put the models much closer to the middle of the range.

        Even during the slow-down in the rise of surface temperatures, ocean heat content continued to rise.

    So you’re saying there isn’t a giant Carbon Knob that can be used to control the earth’s climate?

      Paul: So you’re saying there isn’t a giant Carbon Knob that can be used to control the earth’s climate?

      Increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase the heat content of the Earth’s surface — caeteris paribus.

        rdmdawg in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 12:49 pm

        ‘caeteris paribus’ of course, being latin for ‘I’m smarter than you are.”

          Zachary in reply to rdmdawg. | June 12, 2017 at 4:48 pm

          Actually quite the opposite, it’s a huge crack in the alarmist’s theorizing. If there’s one thing we can guarantee about earth’s dynamic climate systems is that everything NEVER remains the same. That’s why predicting so far in the future is a fools errand and we should never base policy on it.

          Zachary: If there’s one thing we can guarantee about earth’s dynamic climate systems is that everything NEVER remains the same.

          Anthropogenic greenhouse warming is overwhelming natural climate mechanisms.

          Zachary: That’s why predicting so far in the future is a fools errand and we should never base policy on it.

          Well, you can always hope for a super-volcano to block out the sun.

        Paul in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 3:08 pm

        But they’re not, they never were, they never will be, and we don’t even know what they all are. This sort of reductionist “science” is flawed and hubristic; history is littered with examples of similar elitist thinking that turned out to be flat out wrong. I’m all for being good stewards of our environment, but the notion of handing over the keys to the global economy to a bunch of Marxists over this “science” is monumentally retarded.

          Paul: history is littered with examples of similar elitist thinking that turned out to be flat out wrong

          They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. — Carl Sagan

          Paul: But they’re not, they never were, they never will be, and we don’t even know what they all are.

          We understand the mechanisms involved in long stretches of Earth’s history, enough to have a general understanding of what determines Earth’s surface temperature.

          Barry in reply to Paul. | June 12, 2017 at 3:25 pm

          “We understand the mechanisms…”

          No you don’t. You are a complete idiot.

        Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 3:24 pm

        He’s just a paid commie. This is his job. Hellavu job, lies and distortions.

        An uneducated idiot. Paste/copy/link, all to fake data.

Henry Hawkins | June 12, 2017 at 9:54 am

It is irrelevant how well a president knows climatology and the tenets of so-called global warming. Like a judge, no president will be conversant in every scientific issue, and like a judge, he/she can and will rely on accessing experts in the given scientific issue.

How does one evaluate the testimony of a Trump devotee with a real estate license on Trump’s AGW knowledge base?

AGW began as science but was co-opted by leftist politics to become: (1) a mechanism for wealth redistribution on a global scale, (2) a mechanism to further one-world government, (3) a mechanism for acquiring huge federal research grants – but only if you agree in advance to a specific conclusion, (4) a political bludgeon against opposition candidates and causes, i.e., ‘deniers’. There are dozens of lesser benefits to the co-opters.

The whole Warmunist panic is based on a chain of reasoning, perhaps a half dozen distinct steps. The “science” part is only the first step. All the others are also necessary before any sort of governmental action can be considered even slightly justified. These steps are all logical or probabalistic, so of course the typical “man in the street” or celebrity activist is as helpless at evaluating those as he is the scientific part.

    nordic_prince in reply to tom swift. | June 12, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    Not to mention there are boatloads of assumptions crammed into every “climate change” fearmongering argument. In addition to poking holes in their tired rhetoric, we need to hit them good and hard by challenging their presuppositions. Why should we accept the debate as framed by them? Make them justify all the assumptions they make.

Of course Trump doesn’t need to know any more “science” than John Kennedy did when he announced the project of landing on the moon. Other people who have spent their professional lives studying the problems do the actual work.

“flaws in the computer models used related to lack of cloud cover influence on temperature.”

For a chemist, that puts an end to the discussion.

This shows that we have severe deficits in understanding the effects of the ONE greenhouse gas (water vapor) that we absolutely know influences our surface temperatures. That component comprises 2% of the atmosphere, and 95% of all greenhouse gas components. It is also responsible for those collective phenomena we call “weather.”

And yet some moron wants to tells us that we have to act now to “control” a benign gas that is in the 400 parts per million range, a range well within the long-term historical record. Further, that gas is part of the life cycle of every living thing on the planet.

If we don’t know anything about the effects of the major components of a system, we surely do not know how the minor components fit in.

    Valerie: “flaws in the computer models used related to lack of cloud cover influence on temperature.”

    Models indicate that cloud-feedback would not substantially slow global warming, but because of the uncertainty, it has been an area of significant scientific interest. Empirical studies have shown that cloud-feedback is probably somewhat positive. For instance, see Clement et al., Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback, Science 2009.

      Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 12:12 pm

      “Models indicate…”

      GIGO

      garbage in = garbage out

      You’re the very definition of garbage in, with corresponding output.

        Barry: “Models indicate…”

        Models guide research, and we cited empirical evidence. See also Norris et al., Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record, Nature 2016.

          Liz in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 2:27 pm

          You mean the models which are computer programs analyzing data. Many of the programs and the data bases are not disclosed, which prevents another scientist to replicate the results.

          Liz: Many of the programs and the data bases are not disclosed, which prevents another scientist to replicate the results.

          Data and methods are openly available.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm

          “Data and methods are openly available.”

          No they are not, liar.

          They are fake data, just like everything else you prog commies put out.

          Paul in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 5:01 pm

          That is a lie. Many of the models are not open and we know that much of the data has been “corrected” and the original source data destroyed. “Science” my ass.

          Paul: the original source data destroyed

          The station source data was never destroyed, but has always been available in the original station records.

          In any case, Berkeley Earth has kindly posted the surface temperature data.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 13, 2017 at 9:47 am

          Which is as accurate as your lies.

          We cannot measure the temperature of the earth, period.

          We do not know the ideal temperature of the earth, period.

          We do know it changes. We know that is a result of a large thermonuclear ball of gas out in space.

          Man has nothing to do with it.

      Valerie in reply to Zachriel. | June 13, 2017 at 8:42 am

      “models indicate”

      Nope. I am done with your bs.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | June 12, 2017 at 11:32 am

When Nobel prize winner Ivar Giaever came out as a climate skeptic he cited a problem posed by a man named Ilan Samson.

Consider a large, sealed room that is 20 foot square with a ten foot ceiling. Now, imagine you want to create in this room the same amount of CO2 emissions that all the world’s cars belch into the atmosphere in a year. How many matches would you have to strike daily, weekly, and in total?

Answer: It’s framed trickily. Because according to Samson, it takes 20 years for all the world’s cars to emit the same amount of CO2 as striking ONE match in a 20x20x10 foot room. Now, of course you have to make a lot of assumptions abut how many cars there are, average emission standards, average miles driven and so forth. But assuming his assumptions are reasonable, that provides some perspective. Keep it in mind the next time you hear Algore use his favorite analogy that we’re pumping billions of tons of toxic waste into the atmosphere and treating it like a sewer.

The whole speech is worth watching, but he begins relating that problem at around the 26:30 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk60CUkf3Kw

As a **licensed** mechanical engineer and an MBA from a top school with extensive experience in demand modeling, I can tell you that part of the science associated with modeling involves the introduction of “dummy variables” to help explain things that the basic set of equations can’t properly account for. If the model doesn’t work right—i.e., if it doesn’t properly mirror past events—add dummy variables to force it to do what you want it to do.

And that’s what these settled science experts do: they force the model to mirror history (even though historical data has lots of errors and noise in it, but I digress) by introducing variables that make the model do what they want.

But there is no way that the historical data is robust enough to make any projections worth a hoot. And since the dubious projections they do make are so far in the future, no one will be alive to judge whether these projections were correct or incorrect. Thus there is NO responsibility if their whacky projections are all wrong.

What there IS, however, is a clear and easily calculable COST. But you can’t do a cost-benefit and you can’t do an ROI because no one knows **for certain** what the benefits or return will be.

End of story. Say goodnight, Gracie.

I see that we have gotten off the track with regard to the causation of environmental global warming.

CO2 isotopes, cloud cover, etc are merely diversions. Historically, this planet has suffered through massive climatic temperature changes, most before mankind, and therefor man-made pollution, even existed. So, obviously, there are far greater causative factors than human activity involved.

The theory of man-made global environmental climate change is simply hubris. The Earth’s ecosphere is immense. and, it has historically survived exponentially greater infusions of the so-called “greenhouse gasses” over centuries, if not millenia. To state that the amount of such gasses released in the 200 year span of the industrial revolution affects the climate significantly is anthropomorphic hubris. The global climate is a very complex mechanism with several layers of safeguards built in to minimize disruption. many of the governing factors in global climate behavior are totally beyond the control or influence of the human race. The major factor, solar activity, is totally outside the influence of humanity. The same is true of ocean currents, most atmospheric currents and geological activity. Even the human affect on the biosphere is nowhere near as great as is depicted by the alarmists.

So, what drives the “climate change” narrative? Money. Climate change is used to justify taking money from one group and giving it to another. Some of the current global warming advocates, among climatologists, were touting global cooling, a new ice age, in the late 70s and early 80s. Now, having seemingly forgotten their dire predictions of catastrophic global cooling, they are preaching catastrophic global warming. Then we have the financial community. How much money has been spent on “green technology”, most of which has proven to be of little value, except to those producing it? If man-made global warming is such a critical issue, why are the main polluters in the world allowed to keep producing the pollutants while those who produce some of the least amounts are penalized? Money. It is all about the money. Whenever one analyzes human behavior, the first thing that has to be determined is who benefits from this behavior. The second is what they get out of it, personally. The easiest way to do that is to follow the money. It will answer a lot of questions.

    Mac45: Historically, this planet has suffered through massive climatic temperature changes, most before mankind, and therefor man-made pollution, even existed.

    What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!

    Mac45: The theory of man-made global environmental climate change is simply hubris.

    Well, that, and the basic physics of heat and greenhouse warming.

    Mac45: The Earth’s ecosphere is immense. and, it has historically survived exponentially greater infusions of the so-called “greenhouse gasses” over centuries, if not millenia.

    If you mean sea levels hundreds of feet above current levels, or ice caps that once extended to the tropics, then sure. Yeah.

    Mac45: The global climate is a very complex mechanism with several layers of safeguards built in to minimize disruption.

    “Safeguards”? Earth’s history belies that stance. Rather, due to positive feedbacks, it seems the Earth oscillates between ice ages and ice-free ages.

    Mac45: The major factor, solar activity, is totally outside the influence of humanity.

    Sure. There are many forcings for climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts.

    Mac45: So, what drives the “climate change” narrative?

    The science of greenhouse warming.

      MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 4:03 pm

      Somewhere around 40% of the modern warming (since the Little Ice Age ended in the 19th century) occurred before man made CO2 was a factor. What caused the warming?

      Most of the temperature data sets showed rapidly rising temps in the 1980s and ’90s (when this hysteria began). According to the Mauna Loa CO2 measures, in the 17 year period between 1980 and 1997, CO2 increased about 25 ppm, or 7.4%.

      In the next 17 year period, from 1997-2014, Mauna Loa CO2 increased another 35ppm, or 9.5%. Yet during this 17 year period temperatures increased much less rapidly than during the 1980-97 period. The IPCC even referred to a hiatus during part of this period.

      So. The 17 year period from 1997-2014 began with CO2 levels at the highest point in the 1980-97 period; CO2 levels continued to increase by another 35ppm and at a faster rate (9.5% vs 7.4% in the 1980-97 period), yet temps rose so slowly that the IPCC referred to the lack of temperature increase as a hiatus.

      How do you explain that?

        MaggotAtBroadAndWall: Somewhere around 40% of the modern warming (since the Little Ice Age ended in the 19th century) occurred before man made CO2 was a factor. What caused the warming?

        The probable cause was an increase in solar activity and low volcanic activity.

        MaggotAtBroadAndWall: In the next 17 year period, from 1997-2014, Mauna Loa CO2 increased another 35ppm, or 9.5%. Yet during this 17 year period temperatures increased much less rapidly than during the 1980-97 period.

        The last few record years has returned the current warming to the expected trend.

        HadCRUT4 (1997-date): 0.141°C/decade

        MaggotAtBroadAndWall: How do you explain that?

        It’s thought that the ocean absorbed much of the excess heat, which is supported by the data.

          Joe-dallas in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 6:29 pm

          MaggotAtBroadAndWall: How do you explain that?

          It’s thought that the ocean absorbed much of the excess heat, which is supported by the data.

          Zach – the quality and the resolution of the data is not sufficient to make that statement – but you already knew that.

          Joe-dallas in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 6:33 pm

          MaggotAtBroadAndWall: Somewhere around 40% of the modern warming (since the Little Ice Age ended in the 19th century) occurred before man made CO2 was a factor. What caused the warming?

          The probable cause was an increase in solar activity and low volcanic activity.

          Zach – so there is a weak to moderate correlation for approx 100 years then a moderate correlation for 50 years, and virtually zero correlation for a millions of years – But its settled science based on a correlation lasting less than 1% of time.

          Joe-dalls: the quality and the resolution of the data is not sufficient to make that statement

          We’d be happy to look at your statistical analysis of the ocean temperature data.

          Argo: Argo is a global array of 3,800 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean.

          Joe-dallas: so there is a weak to moderate correlation for approx 100 years then a moderate correlation for 50 years, and virtually zero correlation for a millions of year

          When reconstructing Earth’s climate history, it can’t be explained without including all the various influences, including solar irradiance, volcanism, albedo, orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts.

          Early twentieth century warming was due to increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity. Late twentieth century warming was primarily due to the increased greenhouse effect.

    nordic_prince in reply to Mac45. | June 12, 2017 at 1:39 pm

    Precisely – “hubris” is exactly the same word that comes to my mind as I listen to these Chicken Littles.

    Those of us who are old enough to remember when the fearmongers’ “climate change” pendulum was at the other extreme just sit back and laugh, because we’ve heard all these dire predictions before. They didn’t amount to anything 40 years ago, and the current crop of doomsayers crying “OMG THE WORLD IS BEING DESTROYED BY MAN-MADE XXX” are just as wildly off as their counterparts a generation ago were.

    It’s easy to see how the young, foolish, and/or impressionable can fall for this stuff. Either they haven’t learned from experience, or they simply aren’t old enough to have any past experience upon which to judge these fearmongers, or they lack critical thinking skills, or they’re naive, or they’re ignorant about history and/or science, or they’re hopelessly ideological – or perhaps a combination of all of the above. Calm down, kiddies, and take a deep breath. Someone’s yanking your chain. This too shall pass.

      nordic_prince: Those of us who are old enough to remember when the fearmongers’ “climate change” pendulum was at the other extreme just sit back and laugh

      There was never any scientific consensus concerning global cooling. Rather, there are two countervailing anthropic influences; aerosols, which cool the climate; and greenhouse gases, which warm the climate. It became quickly apparent to the scientific community that greenhouse warming would predominate over the long run. In any case, most industrialized nations reduced their particulate pollution, which mitigated the cooling effect.

        Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 3:29 pm

        “There was never any scientific consensus…”

        There is not now, comrade.

        When you do find “consensus”, run, cause it will not be anything remotely scientific.

        Consensus is the term progs use to define brainwashed.

Regardless of the recent temperature data, we are not indefinitely going to continue burning carbon at ten times the rate of sequestration.

The real debate should be about how to transition to a sustainable mix of nuclear and renewables. Just shovelling money to corrupt bureaucrats and politicians and crony corporations does not help.

You can use any scientific method but when your numbers are crap.. GIGO

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

There is a social consensus that believes that carbon dioxide emission will cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Their baseline was established through inference from circumstantial evidence and frames of reference well outside the scientific domain. Their predictions are based on liberal assumptions/assertions and circular arguments (e.g. hypothesis/models).

The radiative effect, which is not a “greenhouse effect”, was characterized in isolation then through extrapolation applied to a global frame of reference. This model or hypothesis has failed to demonstrate past warming, failed to predict current warming, and because of the nature of the Earth system, cannot predict the future beyond forecasting in a limited frame of reference in a semi-stable system (i.e. temperature swings of 10, 20, 30 or more degrees F in minutes, hours, and days).

There is no net change in carbon dioxide. Sequestration and recycling are natural processes that occur throughout the system. The issue is not carbon or carbon-based products (e.g. human life), it concentration and location. The same consideration for organic compounds, including oil, and anthropogenic products, including: photovoltaic panels, windmills, and batteries.

The only alternative baseload energy production technology is nuclear fission. The so-called “green” technologies are neither stable nor renewable. The drivers, including: convection and solar radiation, are. The technology is not, through its life from recovery to distribution to production to reclamation.

Because of the gross uncertainty, the prophecy of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, cannot and should not be address as a utility policy. At best, its a low probability event (e.g. disease) that should be addressed through a risk management protocol (e.g. vaccine vs elective amputation or abortion).

I thought that this was an interesting observation:

“President Trump is … reading all hours of the day and night, and I have seen a few science digests and articles in the stack. He loves to learn, and I don’t think there is one subject beyond his grasp. Additionally, he is very astute about people, and delegates power to those who work in the field and are well qualified to implement policy.”

Trump has had many “listening” sessions with a wide variety of groups and his staff seems to cover different opinions.

To me, this attitude is far better than a president such as Obama who thought he was expert on everything. In an organization as large as the US Government, you cannot micromanage it. You have to get the best people who know the subject matter as well as how to manage it.

Walker Evans | June 12, 2017 at 4:17 pm

For Zachriel the Troll:

First, it is acknowledged that climate change is real. Now …

There is not a single computer climate model that can aft-cast. That is, if fed all of the data normally used, not one can accurately ‘predict’ what the climate was actually like in 1936. Further, all of the so-called consensus scientists all use vastly different models which produce vastly differing outcomes, yet the claim is that they have somehow reached a “consensus”; they have not.

I have yet to see a model that has gotten it right for even a decade of future change. The “consensus” believers have been having kittens because all of the Horrible and Rapid Changes they and their models have predicted for right now … have failed to occur. We still have polar icecaps. The Midwest is not a dust bowl and is still growing bumper crops. The “permanent” California drought didn’t actually happen. Worst of all, a quick study of past climate history reveals that what is happening now is (GASP!) normal.

Go research Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ and you’ll see just how much fraud is involved in this “settled science”.

As noted at the start, climate change is real. The climate is always changing, a process that has gone on since this ball of dirt coalesced and will continue until Sol goes nova. But humans are not the cause of the current changes any more than they were for the impossible-for-models-to-predict Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. To borrow from a current aphorism, Climate Happens!

    Walker Evans: There is not a single computer climate model that can aft-cast. That is, if fed all of the data normally used, not one can accurately ‘predict’ what the climate was actually like in 1936.

    Climate models don’t predict specific years, but broad trends. It’s also important to distinguish between climate change and global warming. Global warming is strongly supported, but how the excess heat will be redistributed in terms of regional climate is a problem that has yet to be fully resolved.

    In fact, climate models are tested against historic trends, both near history and distant history, and then tested against specific events, such as the effects of volcanic eruption.

    Walker Evans: Go research Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ and you’ll see just how much fraud is involved in this “settled science”.

    Mann’s basic findings have been repeatedly confirmed.

      Joe-dallas in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 6:37 pm

      Walker Evans: Go research Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ and you’ll see just how much fraud is involved in this “settled science”.

      Mann’s basic findings have been repeatedly confirmed.

      Zach – you seem to be unaware of the numerous SH proxies showing an elevated MWP that are not included in Mann’s or any of the subsequent HS reconstruction. Do a little research on Gergis, p2k reconstructions which omit the SH proxies and other erros. – I am sure with you already know about the controversies.

        Joe-dallas: Do a little research

        We have. You could start with the National Research Council report, which found “with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries”.

        More recently, a study by the Pages 2k Consortium, a team of 78 researchers, combined the data from over 500 proxy records from multiple continents over the last two millennia. See Pages 2k Consortium, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2013. This is what they found.

        Joe-dallas in reply to Joe-dallas. | June 14, 2017 at 10:58 am

        Zach – your response is not on point nor does even remotely address the issue – Quite frankly -you are repeating standard activist talking points without doing any critical analysis of the controversies. If you actually studied the science, you would be knowledgable on the full range of the subject.

        Zach – you seem to be unaware of the numerous SH proxies showing an elevated MWP that are not included in Mann’s or any of the subsequent HS reconstruction. Do a little research on Gergis, p2k reconstructions which omit the SH proxies and other errors. – I am sure with you already know about the controversies.

      Barry in reply to Zachriel. | June 12, 2017 at 8:26 pm

      “Mann’s basic findings have been repeatedly confirmed.”

      Another lie. Confirmation occurring in the echo chamber of prog commie land is confirmation of nothing.

      Mann is a fraud, just like you. A proven fraud.

onemorejones | June 12, 2017 at 6:13 pm

GLOBAL WARMING

Every 100,000 years or so, global temperatures rise to values we enjoy today. These interglacial periods can last up to 10,000 years. (Reference 1) During these warm periods, there are cycles of relatively cold weather such as the Maunder Minimum during the mid-seventeenth century. This cold spell occurred during a period of extremely low sunspot activity. (Reference 2).

NASA reported the maximum sunspot activity has decreased during the last 3 sunspot cycles. (Reference 3). A 2006 report suggested the next cycle (cycle 25) could be the weakest in centuries. (Reference 4). A British newspaper suggests cycle 26 (2030-2040) could cause temperatures to plummet. (Reference 5).

Excess radioactive Carbon-14 is generated during prolong periods of solar inactivity. Data from independently dated material (such as tree rings) indicate 18 periods of sunspot minima in the last 7,800 years. (Reference 6).

Eighteen sunspot minima in 7,800 years is about 400 years per cycle. Right on schedule from the Maunder Minimum.

A 2016 book includes a chapter that the next “little ice age” has started. (Reference 7)
If so, hopefully it will just last 40 to 60 years. Even that would have a very negative impact on food production.
__________
Reference 1 http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/08/420000-years-of-data-suggestss-global-warming-is-not-man-made/
Reference 2 http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/maunder-minimum
Reference 3 https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Cycle22Cycle23Cycle24big.gif
Reference 4 https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange
Reference 5 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
Reference 6 http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
Reference 7 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000173
Reference 8 http://nativespress.com/2017/02/08/earth-has-shifted-inuit-elders-issue-warning-to-nasa-and-the-world-video/#
PS – Inuits Indians in the arctic region have noted the earth has shifter or wobbled. Sun rise has shifted, days are longer. (Reference 8). The impact of this change on the climate, if any, is not known at this time
Marvin L. Jones BS, MBA, PhD
[email protected]
Retired (Rocket Scientist)

    onemorejones: A 2006 report suggested the next cycle (cycle 25) could be the weakest in centuries.

    The forcing from greenhouse gases is much higher than the expected cooling due to a changes in solar activity.

Zachriel, you’re really invested in this intellectually and emotionally. All those posts, a literal outpouring, a torrent of words. I skipped all of them. You’re obviously crackpot on sight and this flood of yours proves it.

You like arguing and that’s all.

If an argument goes on obnoxiously long well past anything sensible but nobody bothers to read it, is it still an argument?

I suppose yes. A sad propagandistic argument.

Bet you’re a blast at parties. And people love to sit next to you. For your font of government bought and approved received wisdom.

    Barry in reply to bour3. | June 12, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    No, he’s a paid commie prog. This is what they do for a living.

    They have no idea what they are talking about. They get provided their talking points and then spew their nonsense. It works on the uneducated left, which is approximately 99.999% of them.

    My trashcan is full of stuff with higher intelligence than this stupid prog.

      And you would be right in doing so. With the release of the 5000 emails, all of the data and articles provided to support climate alarmist charges are suspect, and anyone who offers them is not worth taking to time to debate.

      As a reminder of the point I made in my article: Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

      Serious minded students of climate science will want to head here for both data and discussion: https://judithcurry.com/

    bour3: All those posts, a literal outpouring, a torrent of words. I skipped all of them.

    Science is hard.

So, question I saw the other day:

What is the ideal temperature for the Earth?
When has it been at that temperature for more then a decade?

    Barry in reply to gospace. | June 12, 2017 at 8:32 pm

    Q. How do you measure it?

    A. You can’t.

    rabidfox in reply to gospace. | June 13, 2017 at 1:13 am

    Another question: WHY is that the ideal temperature for earth?

    gospace: What is the ideal temperature for the Earth?

    The Earth doesn’t really care. However, human civilization developed in a period of relatively stable climate. Rapid change can be highly detrimental to both humans and to the ecosystem.

What Zach the troll and the rest of the Gaia cult leave out of their calculations is the large ball of flaming hydrogen that provides the energy input…. and which is in the process of going into a decline in solar output.

    SDN: the large ball of flaming hydrogen that provides the energy input…. and which is in the process of going into a decline in solar output.

    Yet global heat content continues to increase…

I agree with Barry. Zach must be cutting and pasting talking points. The tell was when he went off script and falsely asserted that the raw data and compter model code is open and transparent. But anyone who has followed this debate would know it is not, as this has been one of the major complaints from skeptics.

An actual climate alarmist would be aware of this weakness in his argument, enough to avoid the amateur mistake of ignorantly asserting that which has already been widely proven false.

Joe-dalls: the quality and the resolution of the data is not sufficient to make that statement

We’d be happy to look at your statistical analysis of the ocean temperature data.

Argo: Argo is a global array of 3,800 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean.

Zach – if you actually understood climate science – instead of depending on activist websites to obtain your talking points, then you might actually realize my statement is correct.

As I previously stated, the resolution and quality of the data is not sufficient to make the statement you made. Look at the actual science – not the activist talking points.

    Joe-dallas: Look at the actual science

    That’s what we’re doing.

    You made a specific claim, that the resolution of the data is not sufficient to make a determination of a trend in ocean heat content. This is contrary to the scientific opinion of experts in the field, so it is reasonable to ask for your statistical analysis of the data to substantiate your position.

    Consider a simple case, multiple observations that vary randomly with a standard deviation of ±0.05 about the mean. You might then naïvely conclude that the standard error would be ±0.05 no matter how many observations you make. However, it turns out that the standard error is inversely proportional to the square root of the number of observations. In other words, multiple measurements can give us a result that is more precise than the precision of any single measurement.

Joe-dallas: your response is not on point nor does even remotely address the issue

Actually, it directly addresses the issue. We provided a comprehensive study concerning temperature anomalies over the last two millennia, one of a number of studies which confirms Mann’s basic findings.

Joe-dallas: Do a little research on Gergis, p2k reconstructions which omit the SH proxies and other errors.

That is incorrect. The Pages 2k Consortium combined the data from over 500 proxy records, including from the Southern Hemisphere.

Zach you continue to parrot standard activist talking points.

If you are looking at all the data, then you are fully aware of the issues associcated with P2k, gergis, ex post data selection, oroka swamp, mt read, law dome, etc,
I presume you are also aware of gergis ex post selection of proxies eliminating all but 27 proxies out of 62 in the SH.

    You may want to post an actual scientific paper on the subject rather than waving your hands in the general direction.

    Joe-dallas: gergis

    You may be referring to Gergis 2012, which was pulled before print publication, revised through several rounds of peer review, then finally re-published as Gergis et al. Australasian Temperature Reconstructions Spanning the Last Millennium, Journal of Climate 2016.

    You can read Gergis’s notes about the process here.

    Joe-dallas: you continue to parrot standard activist talking points.

    Citing scientific research in Nature Geoscience is hardly “activist talking points”. The findings could certainly be wrong, but at least the researchers went to the trouble of doing the research, then going through peer review at one of the most prestigious journals in the field.

Zach – we are making progress – at least you are knowledgable with Gergis 2012 issues – Yes Gergis was republished yet the ex post selection of proxies remains which renders the conclusions as lacking any real scientific insight

    Joe-dallas: we are making progress – at least you are knowledgable with Gergis 2012 issues

    Every scientific conclusion is tentative and only tells part of the story. It would be unusual for such an exhaustive study to not have some problems with data. None of the published corrigenda that we have seen have had a negative impact on the final conclusion. Yet you say there is such evidence somewhere if we just keep looking.

    We asked for a scientific citation calling into question the findings of the Pages 2K consortium, which you have yet to provide. We asked you to support your claim that the resolution of the oceanic temperature data is not sufficient to make a determination of a trend in ocean heat content, which you have yet to provide.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend