Monday, April 30, 2018

Climate Change Update

The VOX Climate Change slides are interesting. They took them from this Nature piece.  This SciDev link forecasts we will be at 1.5C increase by 2030.


The good news is that with Climate Change Deniers in the White House...  NASA continues to maintain their fact based web page.  And so are the NOAA pages.

104 comments:

John said...

"Example: there is ZERO observational evidence that there will be Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming 100 years from now. There cannot be, until 100 years from now. Is that a matter of opinion? No, it is irrefutable truth. Do you believe it? Why? Because it is what you have been told by the tribe?" Jerry

"Are you kidding me with this? So you want to wait 100 years? What will our descendants do when it turns are the predictions are true? You would saddle them with a climate that is disastrous for human interests." Moose

"Moose, I do believe that he is saying... He will not be convinced until we are all cooked. :-)" G2A

"Well, do you have any way to actually KNOW what the global temperatures will be 100 years from now? Can you say with certainty how high temps must be to be catastrophic? Can you PROVE, scientifically, that humans can reliably control the climate?

One other thing I have learned recently about "how we know things" is that if I tell someone the undeniable truth, they may simply deny it. Not true, they'll say. You've both just done it." Jerry

Anonymous said...

I haven’t denied any truth. You haven’t proven anything by stating the obvious.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

I will believe your "Theory" as soon as you can tell me what the global temperature WAS on May 1, 2118, how it was measured, and what the conclusive evidence was that manmade CO2 was wholly responsible for it. Then, if there is a catastrophe going on-- most likely a temperature rise typical of about 30 minutes on a summer morning, I will say you were right, but irrelevant.

John said...

Jerry,
Climate scientists from both tribes have agreed to some predictions based on what humans choose to do or not do. And you choose to deny them with no better prediction?

I am thinking you are the one "just going along" to avoid facing all the facts.

jerrye92002 said...

For #1 there is no scientific evidence. Numbers 2 and 3 are irrelevant to the discussion, based as they are on the ASSUMPTIONS flowing from #1. It's basically arguing from a false premise, big-time.

Bring me ONE fact that conclusively proves a global climate catastrophe awaits 100 years from now, and that it will be caused by fossil fuels. It's all just rank speculation, not even a proper Theory, in scientific terms.

John said...

Again... And you choose to deny them with no better prediction?

jerrye92002 said...

Oh, and I do not "choose to deny them." I choose to label them as wild speculation based on no evidence. Even if the computer models are right, which they are not and cannot possibly be, the range of predictions-- based on assumptions about the future-- is so broad as to be worthless as a basis of public policy. Despite that we have adopted a very expensive public policy which, it turns out, has essentially zero effect on the supposed problem.

John said...

Again... And you choose to label them wild speculation with no better prediction?


As I said a long time ago... Even though you are driving into a fog bank of the unknown, you think we should just keep the foot on the gas and hope there is no moose standing in the road.

I am happy I don't drive with you... :-)

jerrye92002 said...

Prove to me that there will be a moose on that road, 100 years from now. Your "just in case" theory does not justify taking action against a threat that does not exist.

Let me correct your analogy. It's a foggy night, and you want me to leave the car in the garage because I /might/ hit a unicorn on the road. No, make that a striped unicorn.

Anonymous said...

Are you a climate scientist?
Even Paul Douglas, a Conservative, understands that the prognosis is dire.
Call it an appeal to authority if you wish, but I'll trust the people who study this stuff.
Your denial is meaningless.

Moose

John said...

Jerry,
That is what is so amazing about your stubbornness and dedication to an extreme position. You seem to admit that know one knows for sure what is happening or not happening. Meaning that things are foggy.

And yet you insist there is no moose in the fog, instead of least driving a little slower... In fact you are happy accelerating and driving even faster.

John said...

The idea that you truly believe we can go from almost no fossil fuel usage to 120,000 TWh per year with no environmental change is just amazing.

One would think you have never warmed yourself in front of a camp fire...

I am not sure what the consequence will be, but even I can understand that a massive change occurred and that some response will occur.

jerrye92002 said...

I do not need to be a climate scientist to know there is no moose. All I have to do is listen to the climate scientists. When the IPCC says "long term prediction of climate states is not possible," I believe them. When the EPA testifies before Congress that a 30% cut to US CO2 emissions will reduce global temperatures 100 years from now by 1/100 of a degree, I believe it (and double checked their math). When the climate scientists point out that the ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to CO2) is twice as high as it should be and thus predicted temperature increases are twice too high, it at least partly explains why the models predict higher than actual measured temperatures (by a lot).

And about that "massive change." Yes, humans put a lot of CO2 in the air. It amounts to less than 4 parts per million in the atmosphere. The natural seasonal variation of CO2 is several times as large. These are all readily available facts. Do you want to deny fact and stick with your religious belief in catastrophic manmade global warming?

John said...

I will stick with my belief that human activities are changing the earth's environment.

I do not know if it will be catastrophic. (ie big moose)

Or an annoyance. (ie raccoon)

Either way I am smart enough to slow down in foggy road conditions. :-)

jerrye92002 said...

You go ahead and slow down. even if you live in Louisiana-- lots of moose there. But of course you are going to be late meeting that oil company exec that wants to engage your services for $4 million, for 3 months work. Just the "opportunity cost" of saving CO2.

As for your belief, believe what you want. The facts say our effects are near-negligible, at least as far as climate is concerned.

jerrye92002 said...

Put it another way. Suppose your "just to be safe" approach is the correct one, that we need to stop putting CO2 in the air. What is your solution?

jerrye92002 said...

And just to do a moose count... (copied and pasted)

A new study by climatologists Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry concludes that Earth’s “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) to more atmospheric carbon dioxide is as much as 50% lower than climate alarmists have been claiming. That their paper was published in the Journal of Climate suggests that the asserted “97% consensus” of climate experts may be eroding.

Or as Cornwall Alliance founder Cal Beisner puts it (paraphrasing Winston Churchill) it may not be the beginning of the end of climate alarmism. But it could be the end of the beginning of alarmism as the dominant, ever-victorious tenet of our times.

Indeed, say other noted climatologists, there are good reasons to think ECS and alarmist errors are even greater than 50 percent. For one thing, there is no persuasive reason to assume our planet’s climate system and deep ocean temperatures were ever in “energy balance” back in the late 1800s – so we can’t know whether or how much they might be “out of balance” today. Moreover, solar, volcanic and ocean current variations could be sufficient to explain all the global warming over the period of allegedly anthropogenic warming – which means there is no global warming left to blame on carbon dioxide.

If this is indeed the case, there is no justification for the punitive, job-killing, poverty-prolonging energy policies that “climate consensus” and “renewable energy” proponents have been demanding.

Anonymous said...

'Suppose your "just to be safe" approach is the correct one...'

Of course it's the correct one.

If the models are correct and we fix the problem in the meantime, we have a better future.
If the models are incorrect and we reduce CO2 emissions, we have a cleaner environment.
If the models are correct and we do nothing, the future will be horrible for our progeny.

Reducing our impact on the global environment is most obviously the correct answer.

Moose

Anonymous said...

"Moreover, solar, volcanic and ocean current variations could be sufficient to explain all the global warming..."

Yes, I'm sure the 97% of climate scientists never thought of that. LOL

Moose

Anonymous said...

"If this is indeed the case, there is no justification for the punitive, job-killing, poverty-prolonging energy policies that “climate consensus” and “renewable energy” proponents have been demanding."

Nonsense. There are plenty of jobs and plenty of money in clean energy.

Moose

Anonymous said...

Now, of course, the question is: Why do you put your faith in Lewis and Curry? I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with the fact that their paper potentially supports what you already believe. Congrats, you found some scientists who are members of your tribe.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

It is not "what I believe." It is the truth, and you simply wish to deny it. I have as much faith in these climate scientists (and the dozens who have found the same thing about ECS) as you seem to have in those who are continuing to push the false narrative.

Oh, yes! There are plenty of jobs oh, yes! There are plenty of jobs in digging holes and filling them up again, also, but what is the point? If all of these windmills and solar cells raise energy prices and do absolutely nothing for the climate (and that is ASSUMING that human CO2 drives the climate), why should we do it at all? Again, what is your solution other than what has already been mandated by the fools or charlatans in government?

Anonymous said...

Lewis and Curry are outliers among the many attempts to determine ECS.

Sunshine is free. Wind is free. Humans have a genius for finding new and cheaper ways of doing things, as long as the government stays out of the market and doesn't favor fossil fuels as it is currently doing.

The dinosaurs are dead. Don't be a dinosaur.

Moose

John said...

It seems Judith Currey believes in man made climate change... She just accepts that it is very foggy and does not know if we can do anything about it.

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, you are going to have to prove that Lewis and Curry are outliers. I can cite at least a dozen scientific papers, by highly reputable scientists, who will say something similar.

If wind and solar are so great, then government should not need to mandate their deployment, and consumers should not need to pay much higher utility bills for them. Environmentalist that I am, I do not like putting bird shredders all over the place.

jerrye92002 said...

Judith Curry is right. We do not know enough (or shall I say not enough is known?) about climate to make any sort of long-range prediction – a point on which the IPCC agrees. The human contribution to that is even more in doubt and raises the question of why we are trying so hard to do something that we may not be able to do anything about?

I understand a simpleminded belief that the "experts" are correct, coupled with the desire to believe that Mankind is powerful enough to control the weather, but such baseless assertions are not convincing when real facts say otherwise. I will repeat, it is "the most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history."

Anonymous said...

"Moose, you are going to have to prove that Lewis and Curry are outliers."

My well-researched opinion is correct.

Moose

Anonymous said...

"If wind and solar are so great, then government should not need to mandate their deployment, and consumers should not need to pay much higher utility bills for them. Environmentalist that I am, I do not like putting bird shredders all over the place."

You're not comparing the unsubsidized costs.

And solar panels don't shred birds.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

Perhaps you could lay out, specifically, the costs of each form of power, subsidized and unsubsidized. I know wind and solar cost more simply because for each windmill you put up, you have to put up a natural gas power plant for when the wind doesn't blow-- which in MN is about 60% of the time. I know what Warren Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."

As for solar, my house is built to accept them, IF and when they become practical. My passive solar system works about 3 days a month during the winter; good thing I don't depend on it for electricity.

And when you find time, send us to some of this "well-researched" information. I'm not willing to take your unsupported assertions as proof.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not willing to take your unsupported assertions as proof."

Good. Now you know how you sound to the rest of us.

Moose

John said...

Moose,
Excellent reply.

jerrye92002 said...

But I /have/ supported my assertions. How is that an excellent reply, when it's clearly false? Furthermore, many of them are simple statements of undeniable truth. Just because you wish to deny them, based on some belief that has been told to you by somebody, does not mean you have proof to the contrary. Again, for example, we won't know what global temperatures 100 years from now ARE until 100 years from now. If you deny that you're hopeless. And the only evidence you have to the contrary are the /predictions/ from computerized climate models, which make predictions from 1 degree up to about 8 degrees. And we KNOW for a fact these models are flawed and undependable as a basis for public policy because of that fact alone, yet we pursue policies that, even if the models were RIGHT, do not solve the problem. I'm trying to figure out why any sane person would cling to such a scientifically unsound and unjustified policy?

John said...

Yep... We are hopeless and foolish...

You are wise and all knowing...

Please feel free to continue to believe so.

jerrye92002 said...

You forgot to mark your comment as sarcasm, but all-knowing as I am, I assumed it as such. Nonetheless, I will continue to believe as I do until somebody, ANYBODY can prove me wrong. In particular:
-- I said we do not know what the temperatures in 2118 will be. Right?
-- I said the only /predictions/ we have come from the computer models, and those predictions are all over the place and thus unsuitable as a basis for public policy.
-- I said that those computer models are flawed in several known ways, most importantly in that their short-term predictions are way off (on the high side).
-- I have said that even if the models are RIGHT, which they are not, this "green energy" scam is not the solution, and the EPA and IPCC computer models agree with that.

Now, how much truth do you want to deny to stick with your religious dogma?

John said...

Jerry,
I have tried dozens of times to convince you of the fog and the potential moose with dozens of scientific links. You simply refuse to accept that things are likely to get really bad for billions of humans because of the choices human kind are making.

I really don't have the time or desire to tilt at that wind mill again.

Here is a link to a lot of our past discussions

John said...

Now here is an interesting and new link

jerrye92002 said...


Does abnormal climate change exist? No.
If so, are the behaviors of humans causing this? It's not, so no.
If so, why are the deniers so adamant? It's not. We are only adamant because we are being lied about. By liars.
If not, why do so many people believe it does? Because they believe what they are told, for example, by Climategate authors and by politicians seeking power and scientists seeking government money and by doctored temperature records. By "the most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history."
If so, how bad will it get? NOBODY knows, and that is my point.
If so, how much financial and other sacrifices do we make today? None, since uncertainty is so great there is no justification for it.
If so, what will be the benefits? None. There is no benefit to increasing the cost of energy while doing essentially nothing for "climate change."

There are some more assertions you may attempt to disprove. Please be specific.

Anonymous said...

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that thousands of scientists from countries around the world all decided to be in on this 'hoax' together. Although, some people do find it easy to believe these things. We call them conspiracy theorists and dismiss them out of hand.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

It takes great mental agility to ignore the 97% of scientist who DISAGREE with the "consensus" (of 65 scientists, total). And since when do you believe some anonymous experts when you could be thinking for yourself? You keep dodging the questions you should most be asking:
1) How do you KNOW what the "global temperature" will be 100 years from now?
2) How do you KNOW that that temperature will be "catastrophic"?
3) How do you KNOW that burning fossil fuels will have caused it?

Let me help you a bit. If you read through the voluminous IPCC report, you will find a preponderance of articles discussing the upcoming "climate crisis." They all start out the same way: "IF the climate continues to warm, bluebirds will mate too early and their hatchlings may not survive." That's bad, IF.... And as more than one scientist has noted, getting research funding, say, to study the mating habits of bluebirds, is impossible unless the grant request is phrased as "the effects of climate change on the mating habits of bluebirds." Follow the money.

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, let me add this. If you carefully read what all these "scientists" say, it is not that humans are causing Catastrophic Climate Change. The vast majority will say that humans have some impact, but that the amount is not known. Those who study a bit further say, quite correctly, it is probably small and certainly not beyond natural variability. If scientists who study it cannot find proof of a moose in the fog, why do you insist on putting up all those bird shredders?

jerrye92002 said...

John, about your new article. It proves 3 things:
1) Windmills go up where the average winds are strongest. Makes sense.
2) Windmills go up where they are subsidized or mandated. Makes no GOOD sense.
3) The wind industry always talks about "installed capacity" and not actual energy produced, which is much smaller. It has been said that if we could magically get to 95% renewables (wind and solar) we could never produce another windmill or solar array, because the renewables couldn't produce enough power to make one.

jerrye92002 said...

Here's one more challenge for you. A recent study found that those most concerned about climate change actually are the least environmentally conscious in their private lives, while those least concerned about climate change are actually doing the most for the environment. It makes sense-- Al Gore's house and plane being egregious examples. Seems like liberals expect government to /make everybody else/ do what they could and should be doing, according to their ideas.

jerrye92002 said...

John, your moose analogy is flawed, in that you do not mention the COST of avoiding the moose. The cost of complying with the Kyoto treaty was estimated at $70 TRILLION.
cost of moose avoidance

John said...

I'll need to review this further. You did note the:

"Editor's note: The author of this piece, Randy Simmons, is the Charles G. Koch professor of political economy at Utah State University. He's also a senior fellow at the Koch- and ExxonMobil-funded Property and Environment Research Center. These ties to the oil industry weren't originally disclosed in this piece."

jerrye92002 said...

Please stop dismissing truth because of who funds the research, "your side" will lose that battle. Again, Al Gore is making millions, and all the academics are getting government grants. The skeptics tend to be the tenured or retired. Then there is this:
the biggest deception

John said...

You do pick some interesting sources.
Dr Timothy Ball

And for all the text, it seems his central belief aligns with we really don't know what is in the fog. Then comes that question of risk management again.

Do we ignore the fog and stomp on the gas?
Do we stay at the same speed or slow?

Anonymous said...

Al Gore isn't a scientist.

Moose

John, why does it have to be a moose in the road? :-)

jerrye92002 said...

Because a moose would be catastrophic. To me the more important questions are how thick is the fog, and what is the cost of moose avoidance? My two recent cites say the fog is too thick to be travelling, and that the cost of avoidance exceeds the price of the car and an extended hospital stay, even assuming that moose exist. Squirrels we shouldn't worry about.


I will say it one more time: Even if the computer models are RIGHT, which they are not and can not be, the solutions currently mandated do NOT address the problem they are purported to solve. We are avoiding the moose by driving a Mercedes instead of a Chevy.

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, throwing Al Gore under the bus doesn't solve the problem that he is the face of the Alarmist propaganda-- even won a Nobel for it. And he is one of the leading eco-hypocrites the survey discovered. The question is, if he is not a scientist and he is horribly, horribly wrong, shouldn't we discount his (and others')alarmist proclamations and prognostications, as well?

John said...

Jerry,
Currently we do not know the full impact of humans from burning almost no fossil fuels in 1900 to us burning 130,000 TWh per year today.

You argue for letting this continue growing at a geometric rate, we disagree. Thankfully there are more of us than of you.

Anonymous said...

"Because a moose would be catastrophic."

Humorless. Color me unimpressed.

Moose

John said...

Moose,
Just a reminder of why I chose a moose. My family visited the Iron Range on a vacation once. And then we were going to run over to our in the woods cabin near Grand Marais.

We stopped at a store one evening as we travelled Hwy 1 from West to East and the locals warned my parents to watch out for moose because they would often just stand on the road daring the car to hit them. And if you hit one their long legs meant they would likely end up going over the hood and into the wind shield.

Therefore the accident was often catastrophic and deadly. Where as hitting a raccoon can cause some damage... But not usually.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, do either of you have a sense of humor? I sign all of my posts as Moose.

Moose

John said...

I think we got the joke... Just did not know to do with it... :-)

jerrye92002 said...

"Currently we do not know the full impact of humans from burning almost no fossil fuels in 1900 to us burning 130,000 TWh per year today."

Again, you are failing to recognize that Earth is big. Really big. Read the article again, and you will see that manmade CO2 is a real but trivially small number, as a percent of total CO2 and even moreso as a percent of greenhouse gasses. Again, the NATURAL seasonal variation of CO2 is several times larger than the total human contribution. The tail doesn't wag the moose. (Sorry we missed the obvious, Moose, I guess it was the fog :-)

Anonymous said...

Atmospheric CO2 was relatively constant for many centuries until we started pumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere. What a strange coincidence.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

Yes, and your evidence that CO2 matters is....? The "large" amount of CO2 added by humans is trivial. Accept it.

John said...

Jerry,
And you keep forgetting that the earth's atmosphere is very thin relatively speaking. I mean us humans can not breathe a mere 6 mile up...

And remember that scale is not as important as the balance. As we have discussed before.

jerrye92002 said...

So, what is the proper "balance" for CO2 levels? Is it the 20,000 PPM of the rich Jurassic period, when life thrived in diversity? The "starvation" levels--200 PPM-- of the ice age? You keep arguing that CO2 controls climate and that humans control CO2. Do a little research and you will find neither is true. We've had a global climate "pause" for 20 years while CO2 hits new records, and the same was true in the period 1940-1970. Even the supposed "correlation" is broken. Humans contribute less than 1/5 of the natural seasonal variation of CO2 and less than 5% of total (natural) emissions. What you are clinging to sounds reasonable, but simply denies the reality.

John said...

As always... Source please.

See this one is from NASA.

"Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air. "

Anonymous said...

"We've had a global climate "pause" for 20 years"

Every part of the earth's climate system has continued warming since 1998, with 2015 shattering temperature records.

"Humans contribute less than 1/5 of the natural seasonal variation of CO2 and less than 5% of total (natural) emissions."

The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.

Moose

Anonymous said...

More facts:

1 ppm of CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatons
Industrial emissions account for over 740 Gt just since 1988
740 Gt equals approximately 347ppm
In the same period we've increased from 354ppm to ~405ppm, an increase of only 51ppm

"Humans contribute...less than 5% of total (natural) emissions."

So...natural emissions are considerable. Mount Everest accounts for only about .14% of the radius of the earth. That doesn't make it a mole hill.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

THANK YOU for an actual factual argument. Sorry but I will need to rebut later.

jerrye92002 said...

"Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air. "

Again, thanks for at least making a specific, science-based argument for the proposition that fossil fuels are destroying the world. Even though this comes from NASA and its Chief Hoaxer Hansen, I have confirmed from multiple sources that much of this is true. However, you have several choices as to where your argument goes from there.

1. If you are saying that “recorded history” is back to the beginning of instrument observations around 1890, then yes, CO2 levels are higher now than they were then. It is also true that temperatures are higher now than they were then. To suggest that correlation equals causation, however, is incorrect even over that very short time span.

2. If you are using recorded history in the usual sense of the last few thousand years, then while, as you insist, CO2 levels were remarkably low and stable, temperatures fluctuated all over the place, apparently independent of CO2.

3. If you want to use ice core data to look back a few hundred thousand years, you could make the same statement – that CO2 levels have been relatively low-- but you now have TWO problems:

a. one of them is that the CO2 levels measured from ice cores are not consistent with those measured from other proxies, like seashells and sediments, which tend to show much higher CO2 levels.
b. More importantly, you run up against Al Gore’s problem that, in the ice cores, CO2 concentrations FOLLOW temperature changes, not precede them! As the leading skeptics say, “the whole, entire premise of global warming is not only wrong, but backwards.”

4. If you go back even further in history, and geologic time, CO2 levels were in fact much higher, as much as 10 times current levels, and the correlation with temperatures is almost nonexistent.

5. Finally, while it is true that “60% of fossil fuel emissions stay in the air,” it is also true that 60% of NATURAL CO2 emissions stay in the air. If, as we know, natural emissions are about 20 times that from burning fossil fuels, then humans are responsible for, at most, 5% of the problem of rising CO2, even ASSUMING that has something to do with global temperature. Going back to the ice core data, it is obvious that long before fossil fuels, global warming caused CO2, not the other way around.

6. Last but somewhat tenuous is the fact that recent research has uncovered the fact that plants and other “carbon sinks” will absorb 40% of the CO2 regardless of its concentration, while most computerized climate models assume those sinks are already saturated and cannot absorb more. Add this one more error to the long list.

Anonymous said...

"...CO2 concentrations FOLLOW temperature changes."

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.

Moose

John said...

Moose,
Jerry will say the experts have it backwards with no good sources... As he did above... :-)

Jerry,
Maybe you should checkout this newer research regarding plants and carbon usage.

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, I cannot find a graph anywhere that proves what you said. And at what point does CO2, having missed the chance to "initiate," start "amplifying"? If it can't initiate the first degree of warming, how does it "initiate" the second? You seem to be arguing, as the models do, that water vapor "amplifies" the effect of CO2. That's another error.

John, I don't see where that research says anything much different. CO2 increases plant growth and NASA has the pictures to prove it.

And, just to be certain, if you can find anywhere that says it is NOT backwards, trot it out here, because both supporters and skeptics admit it, differing only on the average "lag" of CO2- 200 or 1600 years.

John said...

So we should believe Jerry because he knows what is true and discount what the experts at NASA and NOAA believe?

Where did you develop this inflated sense of self confidence?

Now if you have some source equal in capability and respect to NASA and NOAA. Then maybe we can at least consider your perception of reality. Until then you are just Jerry the man made climate change denier. Which is fine, I have many friends who are somewhat delusional!!! :-)

jerrye92002 said...

So, you want to deny the actual data, the proof from the ice cores themselves, the words of the IPCC and EPA, Al Gore's evidence, the evidence from hundreds of respected and published scientists from numerous fields, and even simple logic, all because you don't want to believe little ol' me? Wow.

Why don't you try actually DISPROVING, with scientific facts and simple reason, any of the dozen major skeptical issues I raise? Just telling me I am wrong doesn't do it.

John said...

I have provided data and conclusions from 2 of the world's most respected scientific organizations. You state a bunch of stuff and claim they are wrong...

Please feel free to believe as you wish. Moose and I will stick with the subject matter experts.

John said...

One more point, after nearly a decade of providing facts and data on many topics... I have learned that you are too entrenched in whatever you believe and that my life is too short to waste my time.

Can you think of one significant change in your belief system that has occurred after nearly a decade of our communications? If not it is likely that your cup is so full that nothing you read or study matters. You have ceased to learn and grow wiser.

jerrye92002 said...

I realize where I have erred. I have been providing data to you, while you and Moose have been accepting the CONCLUSIONS your "experts" draw from that data. Why not think for yourself? Every source I have found says that, for the last several hundred thousand years, CO2 increases have LAGGED temperature. Yet you accept Al Gore's conclusion that CO2 causes warming. What am I supposed to do with that? Should I accept your belief, or the evidence I can see with my own eyes? Do I trust the same "experts" you do, or believe the raw evidence these experts provide, IF they actually provide it?



jerrye92002 said...

You seem to want me to change my beliefs simply because you believe something different. If that is what you want, all you have to do is mount a CONVINCING argument. Until you do, I am not responsible for being convinced of your view when I already have convinced myself of something else. Let's face it, we both have been around long enough that the idea of a new topic on which either of us can have an "open mind" is not likely. Start from there.

I HAVE changed my mind here quite often; you just have not seen it. I have changed my mind from being certain I am right, to being uncertain of my ability to convince somebody else of it. I have gone from being certain of only one way of seeing something to recognizing that others see things differently. From dogged attempts to persuade to "agree to disagree."

So, have you changed your mind on anything? Or is that equally unlikely?

Anonymous said...

I guess the question is: So effing what if, in the past, CO2 has lagged temperature? It is well-established Science that CO2 and global heat are correlated. We are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere more quickly than we have been able to observe anywhere in the climate record. Why are you so convinced that CO2 MUST ALWAYS LAG TEMPERATURE? Especially since the two are so closely related.

There are things we know:

CO2 traps heat
heat causes more CO2 to be released

Your protestations are irrelevant.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

If, for hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 increases lagged temperature increases by hundreds of years, how in just 100 years of the "Industrial Revolution" has that cause and effect been disproven?

Yes, CO2 traps heat. This has been known since 1895. Our planet would not survive without this "greenhouse effect." The problem the Warmists have is a complete lack of proportion regarding CO2. It has been proven six ways from Sunday, by NASA, the IPCC and EPA themselves, that fossil fuel CO2 is a bit player in the warming that has taken place since 1890, and in fact even WITH the increase in CO2 to date, temperatures have risen LESS than that to which the Paris Agreement purports to "limit" Mother Nature.

You continually remind me of the chart of actual temperatures versus the predictions of the climate models, where the caption reads, "97% of climate models agree: the data is wrong."

jerrye92002 said...

just to be clear: the ONLY "proof" of climate catastrophe 100 years from now comes from the computerized climate models. If they are wrong, you are wrong. That would not be problematic except that this massive error (some would say hoax) is being used to drive a public policy that is both expensive and futile.

Anonymous said...

"If, for hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 increases lagged temperature increases by hundreds of years, how in just 100 years of the "Industrial Revolution" has that cause and effect been disproven?"

Because it's obvious (to people with open eyes and minds) that it's different this time.

1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;

2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;

3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;

4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);

5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;

6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;

7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;

8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;

9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation;

10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.

So now that we've established that the only logical source of the excess CO2 is humans, we can discuss how different it is from past changes in the climate; those initiated by orbital cycles and perpetuated by the resulting increase in atmospheric CO2.

Moose

John said...

Jerry,
Actually you have been providing opinions. I have yet to see a link to any data or expert opinion. Just Jerry’s beliefs.

John said...

As far as change, I used to think that the Liberals were the illogical emotional folks. Now I understand that the Conservatives are as bad or worse. :-)

John said...

Moose, Source links?

Anonymous said...

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, you've done your homework! Lots of it. Give me a while to look all that up.

jerrye92002 said...

And while we debate proof for what we think should be happening, we lose sight of what is ACTUALLY happening. So look at that

jerrye92002 said...

John, you keep accusing me of having only opinions. I do not often post sources since you can easily look them up and, if I am wrong, prove that with sources of your own. But my opinion is based on the published work of noted scientists, the EPA, NASA, and the IPCC itself. That is not opinion, that is FACT. One of the most important facts is that you have NO evidence for a climate catastrophe 100 years from now, only a prediction and that is not only too broad (the range exceeds the mean) but is plagued by known errors. To maintain otherwise is not only opinion, it is cant.

jerrye92002 said...

OK, Moose, I have read your links. I find:

Link 1 says that 60% of CO2 is taken up by land and sea “biota” and not the 40% that I remembered. It says “no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Link 2 shows a remarkable correlation between fossil fuel production and atmospheric CO2 concentration. It says absolutely nothing about global temperatures. That is left to the imagination.

Link 3 says “establishes that the long-term (≈100 year) rise in atmospheric concentration is not due to anthropogenic emissions but is instead caused by an environmental response to rising atmospheric temperature, which is attributed in ES09 to ‘other natural factors’.” I should also state, without proof other than the IPCC, that the 15-year “persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere” is substantially at odds with the 200-year assumption in the climate models.

Link 4 tells me that we can use radiocarbon dating to determine whether the CO2 in the atmosphere is “natural” or comes from burning fossil fuels. I knew that, but since only the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is what matters to the “Theory” I fail to see where the components of that total matter.

Link 5 tells us that burning carbon with oxygen creates CO2. That is important, because those who insist that fossil fuel energy can be produced without creating CO2 seem to be missing some very important chemistry fundamentals.

Link 6 outlines an experiment for determining whether CO2 in saltwater makes it more acidic. Anyone who has studied basic chemistry knows this and doesn’t need to do the experiment. So let us propose an experiment that any fifth-grader can do. Take a bottle of Coca-Cola or any carbonated beverage out of the refrigerator, open it and set it out on the kitchen counter. Come back after a few hours and what do you notice? All of the “fizz” (the CO2) has gone out of it. So, if three fourths of the Earth’s surface is covered in water oceans, what do you suspect will happen if “something” heats them? (Oh, and if you left a penny in it, the acids would clean it.)

Link 7 says “During this period, the size of the natural sinks has grown almost at the same pace as the growth in emissions, although year-to-year variability is large. There is the possibility, however, that the fraction of all emissions remaining in the atmosphere has a positive trend due to changes in emissions growth rate and decline in the efficiency of natural sinks.” So, there is the possibility that the growth in atmospheric concentration of CO2 is, if not entirely natural, nonetheless constrained by entirely natural processes. And it should be pointed out that absolutely none of this proves there is a global catastrophe coming because of fossil fuel CO2.

Link 8 does support your claim that, at least for the last 1000 years, CO2 has been relatively low and stable compared with conditions since the end of the last Little Ice Age and the start of the Industrial Revolution. There has been a lot of question about the reliability of ice core CO2 measurements, especially the more recent ones, as well as the accuracy of any of them in absolute terms. But even taking them as relatively true, you still have the problem that temperature increases precede CO2 increases.

I know you were attempting a definitive proof, but I remain a skeptic until someone can prove to a substantial certainty that a global climate catastrophe is coming because of the burning of fossil fuels. Seems to me that all you have is a Theory (technically not even that), and not a very good one.

Anonymous said...

It’s funny. The mental gymnastics you put yourself through to cling to your denial are eerily similar to the mental gymnastics Trump supporters have to exercise in order to not be disgusted by the man.

I no longer care about such people. They’ve chosen themselves over the fate of the climate and the country. Time to move on and leave them behind.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

Please, Moose, be more specific. You have no proof of your religious belief, and your "science" does not support it, either. How can skepticism be "mental gymnastics" when the obvious truth is right in front of us? You cannot predict, nor point to any reliable means to predict, "global temperatures" 100 years from now. Period. Do you deny that?

John said...

Moose, Good idea to spend your time where it may make a difference. And unfortunately Jerry’s cup is full...

Hi All,
Sorry for being AWOL... I was behind China’s stupid firewall.

Now I just arrived in the free CHAOS that is DELHI India.

jerrye92002 said...

My cup is full and I have plenty to share. Too bad there is no intellectual curiosity here with which to share it.

John said...

You are a bit like a propaganda machine, you flow out your views with little consideration of the views of others, conflicting data and alternative concepts.

It reminds somewhat of North Korean leaders, they are certain that they know the right way of things and are puzzled when others disagree.

I am thinking that is why "all old people are not wise". At sometime in their lives their cup starts over flowing and nothing new comes in. So they just strive to defend what is in their cup from that point forward.

It likely simplifies their lives, they are truly free to stop thinking and considering complexities.

jerrye92002 said...

OK, what "complexity" do you see that contradicts what I see as clear and obvious, that you have ZERO proof of what the "global temperature" will be 100 years from now? It's not like I'm pulling rabbits from post-holes here. It is right in plain sight yet somehow you and Moose keep up your irrational denials.

John said...

As I have said over and over again...

I don't need to know for sure what it is in the fog...

I just need to know that it is foggy and that there is risk in going faster...

Where as you support continuing to speed up even though you really don't know what our step change in the use of fossil fuels means. (see Global Fossil Fuel Consumption Chart) We went from using almost nothing for millennia, now we can not burn it fast enough.

As you say, the science is not fully settled and yet you would be happy to use ever more fossil fuels each year and pass the risk on to our children.

It is a bit like your supporting tax cuts that increase the deficits and national debt. As long as it helps you... Screw the kids... :-)

jerrye92002 said...

OK, have it your way, but your analogy is hopelessly flawed. You are not offering a proper risk analysis. I have historical evidence that says there has not been a moose here in 400,000 years. I have written a software program (filled with assumptions, of course) that predicts a near-negligible but real mathematical possibility of a moose sometimes in the the next 100 years, plus or minus 100 years. Now I know that if I pay an extra $70 trillion dollars I can avoid the moose and not drive at all. What do you want to do?

Tell you what. Give ME the $70 Trillion and I will insure you against meese in the fog. Drive as fast as you like.

John said...

Historical evidence is irrelevant...

There have never been 7,000,000,0000+ humans on this planet doing what we are doing.

We are in new territory, thus there is risk. Thankfully most of us realize this.

Speaking of massive nearly immediate in geological time change, look at the human population chart...

jerrye92002 said...

So, it is your contention that human activity is the most significant contributor to global climate, and that therefore WE must "do something." Obviously math and simple fact tell an entirely different story. Moose has already attempted a scientific proof of your proposition and failed. And you still deny the fundamental truth that the future is unknown.

I come back to my simple environmental precept that the best way to limit damage to the environment, whatever that may be, is to do that sort of resource usage that saves me money.

jerrye92002 said...

Interestingly enough, President Trump has just rescinded an Obama EO requiring reduced CO2 and other "environment friendly" requirements with an EO that each agency seek ways to reduce cost and improve efficiency. Should work better.

John said...

There goes that ego again... The idea that Joel's failing to convince an inconvincible skeptic is anyway a failure.

Since I am in the pig sty named India right now... I am happy most Americans believe differently than you do, or our country may still look like this.

Here is an interesting take on Trump impact. Thank God for private business and state control.

jerrye92002 said...

Uh-huh. I see. So because everybody else is going to "do their part" under the Paris Agreement, the world will be saved from Climate Change /despite/ US non-participation? WHERE is your evidence for that totally irrational and unscientific conclusion? Prove it to yourself, scientifically. I'll help. You don't have to prove it to me. Prove it by having reduced CO2 (according to the Agreement) come down and bring temperatures with it in lockstep. It won't happen, and can't happen.


jerrye92002 said...

Interesting that you use India as a model for something undesirable. You do know that they have signed on to Paris only to "Reduce energy emissions intensity by 30 percent to 35 percent from 2005 levels by 2030," meaning they will become more efficient while vastly increasing their energy production for economic growth. And this assumes they can actually follow through and do even that. The US is already pretty much leading the world on that score, and we don't need to hinder our economy to do it just for the "glory" of some largely meaningless agreement. Try doing the math on that Agreement.

jerrye92002 said...

As an aside, ever been to Tonopah? I was disappointed; thought it held great promise.

John said...

Jerry,
No, I have great faith that the states and businesses will go greener even without a Federal mandate. Thank heavens.

Being aware and trying is better than being oblivious and "accelerating" into that moose.

Never been there.

jerrye92002 said...

You are correct, and so long as these decisions are based on saving money overall (such as improving efficiency) rather than government mandates and subsidies, I'm all for it. But the goal MUST be saving money, and if global temperatures are somehow "improved," and you consider that desirable, you can count that as an added benefit.

The problem is that we already have mandates, all based on this cockamamie "Theory," but that do not even solve the problem they purport to solve. Analysis indicates that the life-cycle CO2 of a windmill is the same as a fossil fuel plant, and the hazardous waste per MW of a solar cell is higher than for nuclear. We've been rushed to "do something" for fear of some idle speculation about some far-off "crisis" rather than doing what will offer the world immediate benefit while we wait for some real information on which to base a decision.

And again with the Moose? In Chile? Lots of fog there...

John said...

Silly, it may be a really big llama in Chile.

jerrye92002 said...

You could be right. So all of the things that you are doing to avoid a moose will have no effect on being able to avoid a llama. And the fog I am speaking of occurs mostly in the Atacama desert, where there is absolutely no life whatsoever, not even soil bacteria. I should not need a government mandate to put moose deflectors on my car, or to be forbidden to drive across it as quickly as Reasonably possible.