Skip to comments.CLIMATE CHANGE ENDGAME IN SIGHT?
Posted on 03/31/2013 5:37:27 PM PDT by neverdem
In my Weekly Standard cover story about the fallout from the Climategate email scandal three years ago, I offered the following question by way of prediction:
Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climates sensitivity to greenhouse gases?
The article then went on to survey emerging research (U.S. government funded!) casting doubt on high estimates of climate sensitivity, along with alternative explanations on some climate factors, such as black carbon. The question in my mind at the time was how long this would take to begin to break out into the mainstream scientific and media world.
That day appears to have arrived. The new issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity. That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now. A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages...
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
The climate change endgame is 1/2 a billion people on the entire planet, with a collectivist government running the show. If it’s in sight, we have a problem.
To say nothing of young trees sucking in CO2 like teenage boys cleaning out the refrigerator. Cut more trees, mill lumber, build stuff and sequester more carbon!
I suspect this “religion” is planted so deeply it can’t be eradicated. The average USA 20-something knows far more about global warming than the US Constitution.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: It ain’t what the average 20 something don’t know about climate change that gets us into trouble. It’s what the average 20 something knows for sure about climate change that just ain’t so.
Morons and scientwists
we are getting all the energy, light, heat, radiation from the SUN and sunspots cycles cause the variation.
Just look at the changes: day/night, summer/winter and temperatures changes associated with them.
Humans have as much effect on “climate change” as Zero pissing in the ocean and causing “global flood”.
GET IT ?????
It is another scam to skin the taxpayer sheep.
What's the IPCC stand for...International Perps of Climatetheory Chaos?
And yet billions and billions in fraudulent grant dollars have been awarded to academic charlatans who seized on this charade to personally enrich themselves and their universities. And what about all the disbelieving true scientists who had their reputations destroyed, their careers shattered and, in many instances, their jobs terminate? Who pays for that? I would start with a never ending stream of lawsuits against the Wunderkind of global warming, that Nobel Prize winning Hollywood actor and producer, Al Gore.
Actually, the thing to do that would remove the most carbon is to ban computers and go back to doing everything by paper forms. And of course, ban any recycling of paper.
Using more lumber isn't bad either, but tree-derived paper would use FAR more tonnage of carbon extracted from the atmosphere.
When the Global Warming scam falls, elite liberals will replace it with another ‘sky is falling’ lie. It’s what they do....
Club of Rome - debunked
Nuclear Winter - debunked
Population Bomb - debunked
Peak Oil - debunked
Global Cooling - debunked
Global Warming - almost debunked....
There will be a new environmental catastrophe to replace global warming.
Just wait and see.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
If it were the sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see the most heating occurring during the daytime hours and during the summer, when the sun is at its strongest. Yet the greatest warming has occurred at night and in the winter months. If the sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect the entire column of the atmosphere to warm, not just the surface. Instead, we observe that the upper atmosphere--the stratosphere and mesosphere--is cooling, while the surface is warming. These observed trends--great heating in winter and at night, and cooling in the upper atmosphere while the surface is warming--are what climate change theory says should happen if heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide are responsible for the warming, and don't fit the idea that the sun is doing it. We also have satellite measurements of the total amount of solar energy arriving at the top of Earth's atmosphere from satellites since 1979, and these measurements show a slight decrease in solar energy during 1979 - 2012. In fact, Earth's warmest year on record--2010--occurred during a period where the satellite-measured incoming solar energy was near an all-time low, probably much lower than anything that has occurred for centuries. So, while it is natural to suspect the sun as the source of global warming, "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!"
He quit responding to my emails when I asked him why then during the Paleozic and Mesozoic periods CO2 levels ranged from 2500 to 7000 ppm and life thrived and temps held a steady average never rising above 26 degrees Celsius. And right now CO2 levels are around 400 ppm. Whats the big problem? The left's arguement does not make logical sense...
Crickets ever since...prior to that he responded 3 or 4 times.
Wunderground was acquired by the Weather Channel.
Which itself was acquired by NBC.
As part of the progressive plan to pass off “climate change” as mainstream information.
Ask him why temperatures on our adjacent planets have also increased, commensurate with increased activity by the sun. Also, point out that upper atmospheric layers that are ‘thinner’ would not be expected to be warmed by sunlight to the same extent as those layers closer to Earth, for the same reasons that space is cold, despite sunlight.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change www.ipcc.ch/
Somebody better tell the current Administration
They are still going whole-hog
The solution will be the same solution as for global warming.
Global warming was just an excuse to abolish private property rights and impose totalitarian socialism.
The next manufactured crisis will also be an excuse to abolish private property rights and impose totalitarian socialism.
They fraudsters use this argument a lot, it just shows how scientific illiterate they really are.
It doesn't matter if the sun, if the sun is slightly lower or slightly higher from one month or year vs another because the sun in the last 50 years of the 20th century was still higher than it's been for a 1000 years.
The sun doesn't have to keep getting hotter & hotter to continue to warm the earth. We see this yearly with the seasons, using their logic, the tilt of the earth can't be the cause of the seasons because the sun peaks in June and then declines in July and August but even with a weaker sun July and August still are hotter (and sometimes by a lot)than June .
July and August are hotter than June because 1) The Sun is still high enough to cause warming and 2) The Earth has buffers (i.e. Oceans as heat sinks) to rapid instantaneous changes and 3) it's adding warmth from the previous months
The same with the warming in the last half of the 20th century, sure the solar cycle in the last part of the century was slightly less than the one in the 50s or 80s, but it was still extremely strong and it was adding heat to the previous extremely strong cycles.
That's why their models are flawed, they assume all changes to the sun will have an immediate drastic effect on the earth. It takes time.
And likewise, one weak cycle isn't going to immediately throw us into an ice age, pretty much for the same reason it's not as cold and snowy in October as it is February even though the sun is the same strength.
But yes, the two cycles of the start 21st century haven't been as strong as the two at the end of the 20th which probably explains why warming has stopped.
If two diametrically opposed "problems" have the same "solution", then both the problems & solutions are bogus...sort of like a now famous "hokey" stick graph/equation.
The climate change activists are first, last, and always SOCIALISTS.
Global cooling, global warming, climate change, climate stagnation, none of it matters except to serve as any excuse they can use to fool people into buying into their Marxist agenda.
You know, we’re always arguing here on FR about which conservative candidate we should support, but I’m still waiting for the candidate who declares publicly and bluntly the EVIL of Marxism and an implacable intent to eradicate it.
There are literally tens of trillions of dollars in play on this AGW scam. Very large players in the background most often
like the whole international banking system, and multinational industrial players are not going to just lay over and die. So I stay low on becoming to cocky.
There are always.....
Rocks from Space!
Okay, it isn't quite the sky falling, but it's close!
hah! you are a hemispherist! Tell us what months are summer in the southern hemisphere, eh?
That's only if they win. What the article states is that the climate alarmists are losing. Their house of cards is teetering. It can't come soon enough.
My point exactly.
Yep, young trees gobble up carbon like crazy...
“old growth” trees? Not so much, and some are actually giving off more co2 than they are “eating”.
Because it’s not about “climate change”.
It’s about making “dr” Jeff Masters feel good about himself as “a good person” because he “cares about the erf”.
LOL - good one Joe. Let me guess - we'll all have to 'sacrifice' while giving large sums of money to liberal elite Universities while 'investing' in third world countries 'cause they'll be hurt more' ( read 'kickbacks' to liberal elite UN types...) People who mention rocks-from-space have been with us since the beginning of time will be called 'deniers'... Am I close?
Global warming was just an excuse to abolish private property rights and impose totalitarian socialism.
They've tried this one already, but, then again, they are very, very big on 'recycling', so we just might see that again...
When discussing the state of the atmosphere in geological ages, it isimportant to remeber there were profound changes in far more variables than just temperature and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The changes in the atmosphere have been monumental in quantity, quality, and composition. Depending on how you go about reckoning the definitions, the Earth has had three or four atmospheres of distinctly different compositions and sizes. The Earth’s second atmosphere was up to something around 100 times more massive in quantity than today, and that far more massive and dense atmosphere was composed of something greater than 96 percent carbon dioxide. This made the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide something greater than about 999,600 parts per million versus less than 10,000 parts per million in the most recent 280 million years or less than 400 parts per million in some of the recent decades, centuries, and millenia. Surface level atmospheric pressure was crushing versus today’s macro lifeforms and one atmosphere of pressure. The great pressures and the residual heat remaining from the planet formation kept the planet’s atmosphere hot despite the faint Sun paradox wherein the Sun was much less luminous at that time.
The Earth’s atmosphere has been thinning ever since the formation of the Earth and the formation of the Earth’s atmosphere. The Sun has been increasing in luminosity. The thinning of the atmosphere from upwards of 100 atmospheres down to 1 atmsophere has changed the way the atmosphere behaves and atmospheric chemistry behavees at different atmospheric pressure levels, such as recipitation and gas diffusions. The thinning of the atmosphere and atmospheric chemistries raddically changed the composition of the atmosphere and the lithosphere. The tidal drag resulting form the mutual gravitational attrations of the Earth and the Moon has resulted in the diurnal period becoming longer through the geological ages. The lengthening of the diurnal periods changed the insolation of the Earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and lithosphere. The changes in atmospheric chemistry changed its temperature characteristics. Changes in the Eartth’s magnetic field and magnetosphere altered the earth’s energy characteristics.
Massive changes in the biosphere altered the Earth’s atmospheric and energy characteristics.
Has any atmospheric model adequately accounted for the myriad of changing factors? No, they most certainly have not.
And I thank you fer alla yer posting of frustration by the taxpayer grant paid liars!!!
Plus, see my tagline.
You better become one of them New Age firewalkers so's you can walk on what the Bible calls the coming "lake of fire!"
Now THAT's "Globular Warming" for real!!! (grin)
P.S. You'll find Algore there with the propriator, for sure...
Wonder if a could find that again .
I keep thinking we have whipped the AGWists ( The followers of Al Gore and James Hansen) so good that they will fold up with all of their propaganda...but ....well see post #26.
Remember Acid Rain?
That was a good one... Sadly for liberals, citizens living on lakes could look down and see healthy fish - it was a short lived scam. Wasn't there also one about polar bears drowning because ice floes were melting? That one hit young children hard - and was pushed by idiot low info 'teachers'...
Conservatives should make a complete list of liberal scare stories - well, scare lies... so we can save future generations from being robbed by these lowlifes. Maybe the New York Times or Washington Post would run the list - they ran all the liberal bullsh*t. (Just kidding - the biased groupthink boys of the New York Times can't think outside the itty bitty box they live in...
“That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now.”
The economist used to be an “august” British puplication, and fairly unbiased, and I was a subscriber.
Then it moved its main base of operations to Sixth Avenue in Manhattan and gradually its pages more and more resembled NewsSpeak and Time in the political orientation of its editors and writing.
I first ended my subscription and after a few attempts to see what was happending between it’s covers I quit buying it on the newsstand.
It always had one great editorial flaw. Like the writers of the publications of Jehovah’s witnesses, most of its articles were published without sighting a single reporter or author.
“Humans have as much effect on climate change as Zero pissing in the ocean and causing global flood.”
A minor correction, if I may:
The average USA 20-something knows far more about global warming than the US Constitution.
I was a denier before they called us that. I signed on The Petition Project to keep us from signing a Kyoto type accord waay back when. (Over 35,000 scientists who said the science was not settled and no such treaty should be signed until more definitive studies had been undertaken.)
Needless to say, I don't worry about being on one of the Government's lists...I know I am.
“The average USA 20-something knows far more about global warming than the US Constitution.”
Not really. They know nothing about either of them. They have established attitudes about global warming—but no knowledge.