Obama is gone. The “green queen” Angela Merkel is struggling over coal. Britain is brexiting the green EU. Japan is silent, while China and India burn coal like crazy. Russia never did care. And so it goes.
All in all the international climate alarm movement looks to be somewhere between stalling and collapsing. There is still a lot of political noise but the big guns are mostly silent as 2017 draws to a close.
What is really important is that most of this big ticket movement away from alarmism is coming directly from the voters. America, Britain and Germany have all swung away from the left. Only France is still going green, where they appear increasingly isolated.
Mind you there is still alarmist action in the smaller countries like Canada, and the evergreen EU is trying to act, but it is slow going at best. Conversely, smaller countries like Poland are pushing hard for sanity. There is definitely no present consensus favoring climate alarmism among the nations of the world.
As a result the UN’s campaign to take vast sums away from the developed world, in the name of climate control, looks to be heading straight for a wall. So is the very idea of climate control via world domination.
Some of all this must be the Trump effect, but it is also people waking up to the reality of green pain with no gain. This is certainly true in Britain and Germany where energy costs have exploded. France’s heavy use of nuclear power has delayed these unwanted green policy shocks somewhat, but now they are going after cars, which means directly hitting voters.
It is important not to be misled by the political noise of far away promises, like phasing out coal or internal combustion cars by 2040. There are still a lot of green voters so they will always get distant political promises, but maybe little else. Distant promises are not action.
Of course there is still a lot to be done to rein in destructive climate alarmism. But the point is that right now that alarmism has very little steam on the international stage. Now is the time to take positive steps toward sane energy policies. Some countries are already doing this, especially America and the UK, but it is just a small start at this point.
Ending absurd subsidies for renewable energy is very important. So is deregulation, plus abandoning incredibly expensive nutty green causes like decarbonization. The big green hole we now need to climb out of is pretty deep, so we must start climbing seriously.
We also need to return climate science to rationality. This means funding real science, not computer driven scares. Climate change is a natural process that we do not understand and cannot control. So the grand challenge is to finally figure out how it works, not to fabricate coming catastrophes, which is all that a lot of today’s research amounts to.
Let’s get to work while the tide of rationality is with us.
Knocking out the green subsidies will kill the climate change scam. The ONLY reason why this idiotic movement got going in the first place was because there was money to be made. Reality is setting in and people and governments are finding out that renewable energy sources can’t deliver and that the only thing they deliver are soaring electricity prices and unreliable power. The green grids are killing economies and people.
Face it, the entire global warming movement was just an invention of affluent first world dummies who didn’t have anything constructive to do with their wealth and time. It’s just like eating disorders in the west. You don’t find anorexic teenage girls in Bangladesh.
It’s just question of time when the ridiculous windmills and solar farms end up in the junkyard.
“The ONLY reason why this idiotic movement got going in the first place was because there was money to be made.”
I almost said “bang on” but I think maybe the movement would have started anyway even without the money. But without the money it would have soon fizzled out.
Not sure that I agree. The environmental movement has been growing ever more powerful since the 1960s (when I started tracking it). The primary goal is power, not money. Scares are the primary tactic because scares create political power.
But as the power grew so did the corruption, with huge payoffs now being promised. Many countries and industries are now lined up to make huge amounts of money, but that is a relatively recent development..
The environmental movement has been around for decades, but without money it had no power. Money and power are synonymous in this case. Money buys politicians which in turn results in dumb legislation. Or in the terms of the shake down racket also known as the U.N., they extract wealth and power by just existing. The U.S.A. should also just stop funding the UN. That would do wonders for the world.
Every movement needs money but that does not make money the goal of the movement. I myself have a fundraiser:
https://www.gofundme.com/climate-change-debate-education
In the climate case we do have industry activists whose goal is money making for their companies, especially the renewables industry.
Money or power, which came first? It’s a chicken and egg kind of question. Who cares…
I can guarantee you that when the money (i.e., government subsides) runs out, the AGW movement will die. In fact, the environmental movement is bought and paid for by government funds, either directly or indirectly.
ALL of these “first world problem” movements are phony and superfluous. They are no different than the “let them eat cake” days of the past.
I think you may be underestimating just how dangerous the Greens really are. This is a movement on the scale of Communism last century. It is true that the alarmist scientists get billions from the US and other governments, but the activists not so much. The leading groups like Sierra Club, EDF, NRDC, WWF, etc., get relatively little federal funding.
A lot of people believe this green stuff. For example, EDF routinely calls up 500,000 personal emails backing the latest EPA proposed nonsense regulation. Our fight for freedom is really real.
I think you’re underestimating the power of the people which lies clearly on the other side of the environmentalist movement nut jobs. These are the folks that elected Trump, a victory against overwhelming odds which included the MSM, Hollywood, DNC, and every single left wing organization (and the RNC establishment).
The power of the “Greens” compared to the gun owning population of this country is insignificant. So if the greens want to start a war I think they should think twice.
Just because conservatives make little noise and never resort to extortion tactics (or act like little babies and commit acts of eco-terrorism), doesn’t mean that they are weak.
…and I think you’re overestimating it.
AGW is a well-understood scientific fact that’s withstood over a century of challenge.
Is there any number of people which would be able to overthrow this scientific understanding without data to back up what they say?
climate.nasa.gov/evidence
The Federal government is spending $50 billion per year on grants that support “anthrogenic (man-caused) global warming.” It they have been at this level for the 29 years of this fraud they have spent $1.45 trillion on it, ruined science education and publishing that can be estimated to about ten times the grant figure damage.
Wait: David Wojick of Heartland Institute?!?! The Heartland Institute that is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry?!?! Where the “science director” is a convicted felon was sentenced to six months in prison for defrauding the EPA, even while he claims that the EPA is “fraudulent”?
Oh, well I guess we have PLENTY of reason to accept YOUR version of climate science…/sarc.
Hi Tree. I see you have been shopping at the Ad Hominems R us store. I am not “of Heartland” but I greatly admire them an collaborate from time to time. They did publish this blog article of mine awhile back:
http://blog.heartland.org/2017/06/join-the-fight-for-skepticism-in-schools/
Tree Party and the two lurking trolls that upvoted him are of the mindset you warn about. They are clueless when it comes to climate dynamics.
The “two lurking trolls” you mentioned are actually conversant with climate science while you, clearly, are not.
jmac: 18,856 comments, 43,636 upvotes.
robert: 24.433 comments, 46,477 upvotes.
Immortal600: 2369 comments, 1552 upvotes.
Apropos of nothing. Just sayin’…
Immortal600 – A troll accusing actual responsible citizens of being trolls – major fail!
Using votes to prove a point? Shallow. You are a troll. Nothing more needs to be said. You know nothing about climate dynamics and neither do they
Says the troll.
anyone who spends that much time in meaningless message forums is the epitome of a troll. Guess what, nothing said on forums is worth anything. This is not the real world.
Says the troll.
Why do you shill for the power mongers and dictators at the U.N.? Scared to get a real job?
I shill for no one. I work in the public transport sector, helping to reduce auto exhaust pollution.
You have a cartoonish sensibility: “power mongers and dictators” at the U.N.?!?! Really? So you are really just a cartoon figure. POW!!
Oh, you don’t believe power mongers and dictators run the U.N., that’s rich. Talk about being out of the loop. Speaking about auto pollution, they’ve been getting it under control for years now but with no effect according to you climate alarmists – and you supposedly work in the business.
Tree Party is an eco-kook.
That’s OK; that is the kind of content-free, personal attack we expect from trolls..
Go away creep
You understand that this is a public forum where people come to discuss issues of interest to us, do you not? You understand that I am reading many of the comments here, do you not? If you are too chicken to engage me directly, that is YOUR problem. Actually, I am engaged in discussing the facts of, and evidence for, anthropogenic global warming, while you appear to be here ONLY to make personal attacks on those who disagree with your false beliefs.
“Lurker buddies” = classic projection..
I don’t care to debate you. Don’t you get that? You are the one coming here to attack, yet you are too self-absorbed to see that. Attacking Heartland and Dr. Wojick makes YOU the troll here. This site is for the non believers of AGW. “Deniers” your ilk calls us. You aren’t here to debate. You are here to denigrate and THAT makes YOU the TROLL here. Capische?
I should imagine that you don’t care to debate me; you would get smoked! I get it, alright. You want the comfort of your little echo chamber where facts don’t intrude and everyone can have their conscience soothed about trashing the planet.
I AM here to debate, to present facts and try to expose the fallacies being promulgated by the likes of “CFACT” and the Heartland Institute.
I use “deniers” like “your ilk” uses “alarmists”. I could say “people who don’t believe in AGW”, but “deniers” is more economical and conveys the same meaning. So get over it, like I got over being derided as “alarmist”. YES, I AM sounding the alarm, that NEEDS to be sounded. I think of it as a public service, like education..
You misspelled capisce….
PS. The CFACT Board of Advisors reads like a Who’s Who of global warming deniers, (especially that insufferable buffoon Fake-Lord Monckton). Just thought you’d want to know in case you want to go get some actual climate science somewhere else, you know, for balance….
“I should imagine that you don’t care to debate me; you would get smoked!”
hahahahahaha
I guess you are a legend in your own mind too?
Of course your imagined “power mongers and dictators” have nothing to do with AGW. Almost every nation around the globe is concerned about AGW and signed on to the Paris Accords in an attempt to get a grip on this increasingly serious global problem. Flaring hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon is certain to heat the planet; that is what every scientific association around the planet understands.
I’m trying to understand where you are coming from, but I don’t speak gibberish:
“they’ve been getting it under control for years now but with no effect according to you climate alarmists”.
What does that even mean? Can you cite any evidence for your confused and confusing claim?
Oh, when I get on the U.N. website, I don’t read what is there, I’m reading something else, hmm? Climate Alarmism is about the transfer of money from one group of people to another. No one is concerned about China or India polluting the planet. And teaching the school children about Gaia is beyond ridiculous. And you still can’t figure out cars and trucks are putting out less carbon today than a few years ago. I could really insult you here. “What does that even mean?” What a conundrum! It takes a brain to figure out you’re being had, and you don’t have one. But, I’ll try again anyway…you said you work in the public transport sector helping to reduce auto exhaust pollution and I said you are unable to see that pollution is actually being reduced! You are making no sense what so ever.
This paragraph is almost unintelligible, and the parts that are intelligible are wrong. “No one is concerned about China or India polluting the planet” is a patently and ridiculously false statement.
“…and I said you are unable to see that pollution is actually being reduced.” Actually, no you DID NOT say that. I read back over your comments and I do not find that statement anywhere.
You DID say, “Speaking about auto pollution, they’ve been getting it under control for years now but with no effect according to you climate alarmists – and you supposedly work in the business.”
Perhaps I should explain to you why these two things are not the same, starting with your unreferenced pronoun that obscures your meaning: who is “they”, that have been “getting it under control”? How is “getting it under control” synonymous with “pollution is actually being reduced”? So NO, you did not say what you claim you said. Moreover, your claim is false. In the U.S, according to the EPA: “In terms of the overall trend, from 1990 to 2015, total transportation emissions increased due, in large part, to increased demand for travel.”
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation
I am unable to see that (CO2) pollution is actually being reduced because it isn’t being reduced! There are encouraging trends here and there, but your optimistic euphemisms are mere fantasy. CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to skyrocket. Try dealing with facts and logic, will ya?!
My paragraph is almost unintelligible? I wrote it in simple language just for you and you still don’t get it. I think it’s because English is not your first language. What else could it possibly be? I appreciate the English lesson though, silly as it is. Pollution in America is being reduced and has been over the years. Especially auto pollution. Why you don’t know this is beyond me. Photos of the air in California, even with the fires, show less smog than years ago.
He is full of himself.
He sure is. Have you noticed how low I.Q. people think they are smarter than everyone else?
A common trait among the AGW crowd.
That’s right, troll. buzz off
You cartoon figures seem to be confused about what constitutes “trolling”. Here is the first half of my original comment to David Wojick:
“The primary goal is not power, or money; it is survival. Humans are changing the planet VERY RAPIDLY in ways that can be dangerous to ecosystems and to human civilization itself.
The environmental movement got going in earnest after Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which chronicled the damage being done to the environment by the indiscriminate use of pesticides, chiefly DDT. We almost lost bald eagles to DDT; but now that it has been banned, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and brown pelicans are back, baby. That is a good thing. If you regard Rachel Carson as a power-hungry authoritarian figure, you are laughably wrong.
Then the Cuyahoga River caught on fire…That was NOT a good thing.”
That is NOT trolling; that is reasoned, fact-based refutation of the denier’s premise(s).
Now, by contrast, here is immortal’s first comment in response to me:
“Tree Party and the two lurking trolls that upvoted him are of the mindset you warn about. They are clueless when it comes to climate dynamics.”
Now THAT is trolling. (Defined as making a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.)
Consider yourself corrected, and try to do better in the future.
And by the way, Wojick’s claim that the climate movement is stalling or collapsing is like Trump’s claim that his inaugural crowd was the biggest ever, bigger even than Obama’s: demonstrably false! We’ve got photos!
http://news.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
P.S. Wojick is LOSING THE ARGUMENT about AGW, and he WANTS YOUR MONEY to spread around his propaganda. Go for it, suckers!
You dummy. I didn’t respond to YOU in the first place. Why? Simply because I knew it would be a waste of time. You AGW believers are losing the debate and it scares you eco-freaks to no end.
Trolls r us…you guys…major fail!!!
David is known to associate with Heartland which no longer discloses its funders after it became clear they had serious conflicts of interest. The insurance industry abandoned them for their climate science denial. They bank on real science, not the joke sources you brought. Sorry you confuse information on the real world as “trolling”.
But wait: isn’t this you, photo and all, in Heartland’s lineup of “Who We Are”?!
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/?page=14&type=policy-experts&view=40
and here, featured with CV and links to recent publications?!
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/david-wojick-ph-d
So you claim that you are not “of Heartland”, but they apparently beg to differ. Whom to believe; hmmm…
The Ad Hominem aspect of my comments is extremely well-founded as regards the cynically venal Heartland Institute, given their claim that you are “one of them”. But the REAL issue is with the demonstrably false claims you make such as:
“..“climate literacy” is code for the false belief that humans are causing dangerous climate change.”
1) The planet is warming, rapidly. The evidence is too compelling for even a fossil fuel industry shill to deny.
2) The vast and overwhelming consensus among people conversant with climate science is that it is human activity that is causing the warming. Absent the massive emissions of GHG’s by humans, the planet would likely be cooling.
3) The effects of the observable planetary warming are certain to be damaging on balance. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of ecology will recognize that the rapid change of planetary temperature and ocean pH will disrupt ecosystems that humans depend on .
So the belief that humans are “causing dangerous climate change” is not a “false belief” as you claim. It is a real and present danger that virtually ALL scientific organizations worldwide are working to address.
There will be a special place in hell reserved for people who knew better, but used their intellectual gifts to enrich themselves to the detriment of their posterity.
Tree: Heartland lists a hundred or more informal advisers, of which I am proud to be one, and we do correspond. Like I said, I did a blog article awhile back. If that is what you mean by “Wojick of Heartland” then fine. My point is simply that I neither work for nor speak for Heartland, although I would be proud to do both. Perhaps you are gripped by the green fear of Heartland.
As for your three claims, they are alarmist propaganda personified. Re #1 the earth is simply not warming rapidly and what little warming there is seems to be natural. We have satellite measurements going back almost 40 years and they show just a small amount of warming, which is almost entirely due to a few strong El Nino’s. So there is little if any GHG warming. In particular there is no overall warming 1978 to 1997, when the scare really got going.
You are probably looking at the surface temperature computer model outputs, which are as bad as the climate computer model outputs, if not worse. You might look at my article here: http://www.cfact.org/2017/05/18/fake-temperatures/, which Heartland happily lists.
Given that there is no rapid warming, your other two points are simply wrong. But re #2 the fact that a lot of people (like you) believe that there is dangerous rapid warming, when there is in fact none, simply shows that the alarmist propaganda has been effective and that is the real problem. The global warming scare is based on widespread false beliefs.
Dr. Wojick, my hat is off to you for being a gentleman with that dude. I don’t believe he deserves kindness because it is people like him that would wreck our great economy with their loony tune ideas.
So much wrong here I don’t know where to start…
Your claim that “there is no overall warming from 1978 to 1997”, that “.. the satellites show no such warming in the atmosphere over this period” is demonstrably wrong:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1978/to:1997/plot/rss/from:1978/to:1997/trend
Why do you make that false claim when it can so easily be shown to be false?! What the actual satellite measurements show is a 1 deg. C per century rise in “global temperature” over that two decade period. Are you lying, or just misinformed?
But that was twenty years ago. Let’s see what “the satellites show” for the last 40 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1978/to:2017/plot/rss/from:1978/to:2017/trend
This ~0.7 deg. C increase in 40 years is in agreement with ground-based temperature measurements, and is startlingly rapid in geological terms.
All of your hand-waving about the unreliability of the temperature measurement methodology ignores one important point: HOWEVER you measure the temperature, if it just keeps going up year after year for decades, you are out of the noise and into the signal! Even the El Ninos are getting hotter..
There are multiple converging lines of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. As an epistemology guy, that should catch your attention. Besides the obvious temperature record, there is the observable fact of melting ice around the globe. Arctic sea ice extent is crashing. Glacier National Park is almost out of glaciers. Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice mass precipitously.
All that melting ice is going into the oceans which, predictably, are rising, both because of the melt water, and because of the rising temperature of the oceans. No serious person doubts that sea level is rising globally; do I need to show you the data, or can you do that for yourself?
Growing seasons are measurably lengthening due to shorter winters. Floral and faunal migrations, uphill and poleward, are evident in an attempt to escape the growing heat.
In short, all of the phenomena that global warming would predict are apparent. And we know why, because we can measure it: the injection of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere by human activity. CO2 is a GREENHOUSE GAS; and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by over 45% in the last century, to a level that has never occurred in human history. That’s what flaring hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon will do.
These are all simply facts, not “false beliefs”. Thankfully, people who actually study climate know that it is YOU that is peddling false beliefs and sowing doubt in the face of a growing global threat.
Remember, David: multiple converging lines of evidence.
https://scienceornot.net/2013/09/09/established-scientific-models-are-supported-by-multiple-independent-lines-of-evidence/
There are two problems with you WFT graphs, Tree. First, they only show the lower troposphere, not the entire atmosphere, for which a lot of that early warming disappears. Second, the data is from RSS, which uses a climate model to “adjust” its estimates. Let’s see these two graphs using UAH data and the whole atmosphere.
But your 40 year graph does in fact show that most of the warming occurs in a single jump caused by the giant El Nino in the middle. So there is relatively little GHG warming, if any.
As for the rest, we know that some places have warmed and others cooled. Other than the satellite data we do not know what has happened globally. There are no converging lines of evidence, whatever that metaphor might mean. In fact there is no evidence of significant GHG warming.
Here’s the 20 year graph from UAH:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:1997/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:1997/trend
Here’s the 40 year graph from UAH:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2017/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2017/trend
Pretty much the same data…
Here’s the land/ocean record for 40 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1978/to:2017/plot/best/from:1978/to:2017/trend
You are losing the argument, David, because you are denying the OBVIOUS FACTS of the physical world. Apparently you did not read the link on the converging lines of evidence. I would be highly interested to know if you also disbelieve evolution, for which there are also multiple converging lines of evidence. Agreed that it is off topic, but I always look at the belief in evolution as a sort of litmus test of scientific credibility.
Every credible temperature record showing rapid warming; melting ice; rising sea level; shorter winters; floral and faunal migrations; more global heat records by far than global cold records; but “no converging lines of evidence of significant GHG warming??!! That’s just crazy talk…
Global temperature data analysis made simple.
Here it is in simple steps. Start with this graph of UAH global temperatures for the lower atmosphere (even though the whole atmosphere would be better):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2017_v6.jpg
1. Note the red line, which shows the running average. Clearly this is an oscillator. We know that linear trend lines for selected periods of oscillators are highly sensitive to the start and end points, hence most are inaccurate. The best trend lines are those that start and end at similar places in different oscillations. The rest are more or less wrong depending on where they start and end. They can be very wrong.
2. Note the giant El Nino in the middle. Prior to that there is very little warming. In fact the El Nino looks like it interrupts a downward oscillation. If we go from the beginning to the last parallel upward oscillation in 1994 there is just about no warming at all.
3. After the giant El Nino and its attendant La Nina there is also very little warming, until the next big El Nino hits at the end. What happens after this last El Nino is anyone’s guess at this point.
4. However, the second flat period is significantly warmer than the first, by about 0.25 degrees.
5. Conclusion: There is some warming, but it is small and due to the giant El. Nino. In particular there is no evidence of significant greenhouse warming in the entire record.
Good, David: I am gratified to see 1) the explicit admission that there HAS been global warming over the period of the satellite record and 2) the tacit admission that the satellite temperature record as compiled by the UAH is “legitimate”. These admissions are strongly at odds with the impression created by most of your prior statements about the issue of global warming.
But let’s drill down into your specious “analysis “ of global temperature data…
1) The “red line” (running, centered 13-month average) is clearly NOT an oscillation. But in respect of the fact that it does fluctuate, let’s use your own criterion here to plot the linear trend (“The best trend lines are those that start and end at similar places in different oscillations.”) From the inflection point at the top of the first cycle, around 1980, to the top of the last cycle, around 2016, the delta T is OVER 0.5 deg. C. (Connecting the points at the bottoms of the succeeding negative excursions yields an even greater delta.) So in fact, the measured global warming over the ~38 years is 0.5 deg C, NOT the 0.25 degrees that you claim.
2) El Nino’s do not cause global warming, and so the significant warming measured in the last 38 years is NOT “due to the giant El Nino”. In fact, that claim is self-contradictory: to the extent that El Nino is an “oscillation”, and oscillations do not show linear trends, the El Nino CANNOT cause the global warming.
3) 0.5 degrees C can be thought of as a “small” rise in temperature; but, as always in the real world, the rate of change is profoundly pertinent. 0.5 degrees warming in 38 years is a rate of change that is very rapid in geological terms; beyond “significant”, all the way to, yes, alarming. Any fourth grader can see that the trend in the temperature record you have presented is perceptibly positive, significantly so in fact. The trend, so obvious to even a fourth grader, IS the greenhouse warming that you claim is absent. It is not the linear trend that is explained by the ninos and ninas; it is the variation around the trend that is explained by them. Just ask 97 out of 100 climate scientists!
In short, your “analysis” is specious, misleading, and downright wrong in places. And you aspire to “educate” our children about the true nature of climate science?! Dunning Kruger much?
You obviously decline to see what I have pointed out, so we are at an end. I have stated my case and presented my evidence, which I think is quite clear. The only warming in the entire 40 year record is coincident with 2 big El Ninos. It is painfully simple. They are none so blind as them what refuses to see.
Say, is that a beam in your eye?
“The Greens are losing the international climate fight”.. – Another false premise.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
“Bottom Line
U.S. public concern about global warming has ebbed and flowed over the past decade and a half but has generally been on an upswing since hitting a recent low point in 2011. Concern has increased each of the past two years, coinciding with an improved economy and back-to-back unseasonably warm winters.
Whatever the reason, the percentage of Americans worrying a great deal about global warming is at a record high, as is Americans’ belief that its effects have already begun and that human activity is the major cause. Still, less than half worry greatly about global warming or believe it poses a serious threat to their lives.”
Thanks for the debate.
Interesting list of places that graph is published at. I should put published in single quotes though as they seem to all be blogs with varying degrees of ill repute….
“…what little warming there is seems to be natural.”
Said by basically no scientist, anytime, anywhere….
A Student’s Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/
WHAT WE KNOW
THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide
Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/
European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu
Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu
republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/
George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org
EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124
And the science condensed :
D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}
• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}
• Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}
• It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}
• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}
• It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
SPM WG1 AR5
Nice argument from authority, a classic fallacy. But actually lots of scientists argue that most of the warming is natural, especially the Danes and Russians.
Your listing does highlight the sweeping power of climate alarmism, to at least generate propaganda. This much is true.
In fact I have a catalog of many of the biggest so-called climate education sites, all alarmist:
http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2017/05/33-alarmist-climate-change-teaching.html
Most are either Federal or federally funded, big bucks indeed. There is no skeptical education site, which is why I want to build one.
https://www.gofundme.com/climate-change-debate-education
So. List of those “Danes and Russians” with their publications?
Gone missing.
List of “lots”?
Gone missing.
A citation of a review of the publications of those “lots” discussing how they fit to the whole body of research?
Gone missing.
A bit of bolding to clarify how you attempted to use a false charge in an effort to negate that I posted links to authoritative sources.
“Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
And “the same” to someone who goes by the handle (TreeParty), as well, no?
“the same” what? That’s like a pronoun without an antecedent – makes for very confusing writing..
“…we do have industry activists…” Indeed.
Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations
” This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.”
http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx?la=en
How do I get some of this money? But I am curious who these CCCM orgs are? I do not know of any substantial US group that just does climate change. Lots of groups do a little on climate change, plus a lot on other issues. Maybe they are counting the funding for all of that other stuff.
” I do not know of any substantial US group that just does climate change.”
Well, most everybody, actually.
Start at respecting planetary bounderies. – http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/planetary-boundaries/about-the-research/quantitative-evolution-of-boundaries.html
And, as previously cited:
D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}
• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}
• Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}
• It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}
• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}
• It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
SPM WG1 AR5
I was referring to skeptical groups. That $900 million a year is ridiculous. I can believe $9 million, maybe even $19 million, but that is about it. The number of professional skeptics is maybe about a hundred, including me, and I do a lot for free. And even among the hundred or so, almost no one does it full time. Even if there were 900 of us that would still be a ridiculous million dollars apiece.
This $900 million is just a hoax. Alarmists trying to explain why so few people believe them and ignoring the obvious answer.
And there we have it. No resources. Just “hoax” & ‘belief’. And math that is driven by desire.
And this is from a self identified “… professional skeptics…”
On the other hand, we have nearly two hundred years of research. We have public /government policy. We have businesses and military with developed action plans.
“hoax” & ‘belief’.
Driven by
Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations
” This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.”
http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx?la=en
” “The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes.”
To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.
The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010. The data shows that these 91 organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities, Brulle notes.”
Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/
There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
By Bart Verheggen
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/there-once-was-a-polar-bear-science-vs-the-blogosphere/
longer
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/
…and Then There’s Physics also discusses it at
Polar Bears and Arctic sea ice
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/
If you are a professional skeptic, perhaps you should lay out exactly what, in detail, you are skeptical of and the reading you’ve done that drove that skepticism
What research about “hoax” informed your thinking?
Well, Robert, I have been fighting climate alarmism more or less full time since 1992, so the reading is rather voluminous. Plus I have done hundreds of articles and original research projects of my own.
The hoax I referred to is that skeptics like me are getting $900 million a year. If that were true we would have stopped your alarmism a long time ago.
My skepticism is very simple. There is no evidence that humans are causing dangerous climate change. I also understand the hundreds of component issues that make up the climate debate, but I am not going to detail them here. Your request is ridiculous, as usual.
So, basically, you prefer to make unsupported claims on the state of the science describing what our burning of fossil fuels has done.
You also prefer to make unsupported claims on the state of the science describing any other hypothesis that addresses the observations.
Further, you prefer to make unsupported claims on the state of the science describing what observations are being or have been done
Then, you proceed to state you’ve “..done hundreds of articles and original research projects of my own” without a link to anything supporting that claim. And scholar.Google shows your name about 157 times, and that includes being quoted from a 1979 pub.
Further, you prefer to make unsupported claims on the state of the research
disussing how climate science denialism has a clear path of monetary and talking point distribution.
So the best defense a self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” can bring forward is empty, unsupported claims, assertions that don’t match the evidence, logical falkacies, empty rhetoric, and an expression of incredulity in the face of published research.
Yes.
:)
https://www.heartland.org/sebin/l/y/chalkboard.jpg
Young school child pointing out what she learned about climate change thanks to Heartland Institute”s curriculum
“In fact “climate literacy” is code for the false belief that humans are causing dangerous climate change. ”
JOIN THE FIGHT FOR SKEPTICISM IN SCHOOLS
JUNE 19, 2017
By David Wojick
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/join-the-fight-for-skepticism-in-schools
In fact, that is the same Heartland Institute that has been lying about science ever since epidemiology blew the whistle on tobacco.
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute’s web site, is a nonprofit “libertarin think tank” that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation.
These people represent all the predatory capitalist.
Apparently far right wingers, libertarians and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. Then use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that free market capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done by their product. These people are immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. They are some of the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute_and_tobacco
Like I said, Robert, your requests are completely unrealistic, as usual. You seem to be asking me to present and defend my skepticism on the full range of climate issues — in a blog comment! It would actually be a large book, maybe several.
I do not get paid to comment so I can only afford a few minutes a day, if that. But if you want a deeper understanding of my positions on various issues, you might start with the 70 or more CFACT articles that I have written in the last year or so. In fact one of my latest is a good starting point. I explain in simple terms why IPCC modeling is circular junk:
http://www.cfact.org/2017/12/24/trumps-energy-department-supports-un-ipcc-alarmism-big-time/
I do not write for academic journals so Google Scholar is not useful for finding my stuff. Journals do not pay, they are far too slow, and they are staffed by academic, hence alarmist, editors. So I do not write for them..
Oh. Let’s look.
Here I am, no funding. Yet I can present nearly a dozen compilations describing what the science says.
And your retort is you don’t get paid…..
An you can’t even get up the steam to link to one of your articles you claim proves something.
And, of course, conspiracy theory…..
https://www.heartland.org/sebin/l/y/chalkboard.jpg
Young school child pointing out what she learned about climate change thanks to Heartland Institute”s curriculum
“In fact “climate literacy” is code for the false belief that humans are causing dangerous climate change. ”
JOIN THE FIGHT FOR SKEPTICISM IN SCHOOLS
JUNE 19, 2017
By David Wojick
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/join-the-fight-for-skepticism-in-schools
I did link to an article.
How is your time being paid for? How do you pay for stuff? I need to work hard for money to do that. If you do not, congratulations.
Yes, we’ve discussed the bit of “original research” you linked to and the quality of the three resources you used.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_greens_are_losing_the_international_climate_fight/#comment-3679180995
And we’ll note the bit of wordplay involved in your 2nd para query .
I’m puzzled as to how a degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” doesn’t have access to any comprehensively researched pieces supporting the claims.
All we get is your empty assertions.
6th graders, average 6th graders can’t get away with that.
I mostly do original research, rather than building on what others have done. One reason for this is that to my knowledge no one else in the climate science community is trained in analytic epistemology, philosophy of science and mathematical logic, which are my primary fields (along with engineering). A lot of what I do is actually math not science.
So I am bringing a different set of tools to the job. One of the most important is my work on the logic of complex issues. I know of no other logicians working on climate change. So I am bound to see things that others do not.
Wow, “…original research,…” involving “…analytic epistemology, philosophy of science and mathematical logic…” which can only be published on a blog.
Sorry, but you haven’t linked to a single piece of your writing that show any evidence of those fields being researched.
Secondly, who, exactly are you trying to fool? Those topics and you’re not publishing in the science literature? Who do you think your audience is?
“Google Scholar is not useful for finding my stuff”
stuff is right….also right is that you have nothing to do with scholarship or science.
Perhaps speech writing for TRUMP !?
Well said and accurate.
The budgets for DAILY Caller, Breitbart, Twitchy and other PROFESSIONAL Opinion Media exceed $1 billion per year.
“…This Holocene Inter Glacial Warm Period PEAKED in Temps.
about 8000 years ago. Since then, temps have been slowly falling
as we were pulled toward the next ICE AGE…though Earth is still
Being Pulled in orbit away from the Sun…..We should still be colling
but in the mid 1700’s Earth’s MOST powerful natural Cycle,
the Ice Age
was terminated…abruptly…temps started to rise .
.
So Suddenly that people began questioning & Studying.
.
Direct observations
1799
Alexander von Humboldt studied, worried and postulated that
Human Activites / pollution would CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE!
1799
Thomas Jefferson also penned a paper on observed changes in climate which he stated wasprobably caused by man.
.
….CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity.
.
Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths.
.
Ocean and surface temperature measurements are rising.
.
**** These Research studies find the planet ****
continues to accumulate heat. Year after year.
HERE is a line of empirical evidence:
that human/industry CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
**
*
Climate Myth / The Skeptic-Denier position.
There’s no empirical evidence ?
.
“There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions
are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just
concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator,
so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence.”
(noted DENIER David Evans)
***
The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:
.
We’re raising CO2 levels
.
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751.
.
CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century,
climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe.
.
Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites.
.
For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 180-to-280 parts per million.
.
Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased
by about 100 parts per million.
.
Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions.
.
The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the “airborne fraction”, has hovered around 43% since 1958.
.
CO2 traps heat
.
According to radiative physics & decades of laboratory Measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected/predicted
to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.
Human Agriculture & Industry is producing 120-135 TIMES MORE CO2 than ALL of EARTH’s Volcanoes Combined….every year !
..
Leading
Scientists
Questioned
Green House Gas effects in our atmosphere:
So,
In 1970,
NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
.
Google: Iris Satellite Research Abstract
.
In 1996,
the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
which recorded similar observations.
Google: IMG Satellite Research Abstract
.
Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period
Google (Harries 2001 research abstract)
.
What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.
The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent
with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
.
This research & paper found
“direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
.
This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
using data from later satellites
Google (Griggs 2004 Research Abstract)
Google (Chen 2007 Research Astract )
.
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature
Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)
When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
.
Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
Hence
we Expect/Predict to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
.
Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
of infrared radiation returning to earth
Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
.
A regional study over the central Alps found that
downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
enhanced greenhouse effect
.
Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
.
Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
.
Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
.
The results lead the authors to conclude that
*
*** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused
by global warming.”
.
Figure 3:
Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases
Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
.
This Entire planet is accumulating heat
.
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space,
our climate accumulates heat.
.
The planet’s total heat buildup can be derived by
adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere,
land and ice.
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research abstract)
.
Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record
and heat capacity of the troposphere.
Land and ice heat content (eg – the energy required to melt ice)
were also included.
.
Figure 4:
Total Earth Heat Content from 1950
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research Abstract)
.
Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
.
From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a
rate of 190,260 gigawatts
with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt,
imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants
pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
What about after 2003?
.
A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed
from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep
.
Google (von Schuckmann 2009).
Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat
to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2,
consistent with other determinations of
the planet’s energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009).
The planet continues to accumulate heat.
.
Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
.
So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming.
Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.
The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed
by satellite and surface measurements.
The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the
planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature
Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)
When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
.
Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
.
Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
of infrared radiation returning to earth
Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
.
A regional study over the central Alps found that
downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect
.
Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
.
Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
.
Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
.
The results lead the Research authors to conclude that
**** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
.
Figure 3:
Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases
Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
.
The planet is accumulating heat
.
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space,
our climate accumulates heat.
The planet’s total heat build up can be derived by adding up
the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere,
land and ice
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research abstract)
.
Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record
and heat capacity of the troposphere.
Land and ice heat content (eg – the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
.
Figure 4:
Total Earth Heat Content from 1950
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research Abstract)
.
Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
.
From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
.
What about after 2003?
.
A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from
ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep
.
Google (von Schuckmann 2009).
Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat
to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2,
consistent with other determinations of
the planet’s energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009).
The planet continues to accumulate heat.
.
Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
.
So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming.
Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.
The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed
by satellite and surface measurements.
The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the
planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.
I assume that you are not expecting a detailed response to all of this stuff, or if so then I must disappoint you. I can make a couple of general points.
First, regarding the supposed increase in Earth system heat content, start here:
http://www.cfact.org/2017/05/18/fake-temperatures/
The ocean statistics are even worse.
Second, if you look at the UAH satellite temperature measurements, there is no significant GHG warming at all. There is little to no warming prior to the giant El Nino cycle beginning in 1998. There is no warming after that cycle, until the present big El Nino cycle started. However, the second flat period is a few tenths of a degree warmer than the first, presumably due to heat injected by the giant El Nino and retained in the atmosphere.
In short there is no observational evidence of any GHG warming. Everyone is trying to explain the supposed warming in the surface statistical models, which probably did not exist and in any case cannot be due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.
Love it. A degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” says”…no observational evidence of any GHG warming”
And no supporting evidence beyond his own blog article that cites a whopping 3 resources in analyzing “There are at least ten things wrong with these statistical models. These flaws support the view that these crude temperature estimates are simply wrong.”
Your first resource is trying to sell a product.
“Company Reports FAQ
Why this report is so cheap?”
The second utilizes “..experienced online freelance writers who share in our mission to provide content that is not only reliable, but that leaves readers feeling educated, empowered, and understood.” I like the “feeling” bit. But the site looks like it’s there to serve up clicks for advirtizers.
The third looks to be broken or dead.
Really, this is the best a degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” sayING “…no observational evidence of any GHG warming” can offer up in support? Stuff that doesn’t meet even a cursory use of the
C.R.A.A.P. TEST
Currency: the timeliness of the information
When was the information published or posted?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
Are the links functional?
Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience?
Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
Authority: the source of the information
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?
examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
.org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)
Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
Where does the information come from?
Is the information supported by evidence?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?
Purpose: the reason the information exists
What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?
http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505
Here’s a couple of simple worksheets to print out to help:
http://libraryguides.ccbcmd.edu/ld.php?content_id=14159298
http://www.juniata.edu/services/library/instruction/handouts/craap_worksheet.pdf
YOU REFERENCE SAID:
“…Contrary to popular belief these are not measurements. They are the output of complex statistical models.
These statistical models are every bit as questionable as the climate models they feed into, actually more so.
The global warming scare is based on the supposed rapid surface warming that occurred in the two decades between roughly 1978 and 1997.
The climate models are tuned to this warming, using speculative human causes to explain it. They then project this surface warming to dangerous future levels and that is the scare….”
***
MODELS are computer TOOLS to study millions of human measures.
***
A few years ago, International New MEDIA with private investigators set out to PROVE you allegations…..that GLOBAL WARMING is a fraud….
.
They found over 30.000 privately owned & operated
Digital Weather Stations around the world
…independent air fields and free sea ports, Ocean shippers, trucking companies, farm bureaus, corporate farms, monasteries, factory wineries etc.
.
They processed tens of millions of data set, going back nearly 20 years……
.
and despite your claims and your bogus source….
Temperatures have INCREASED for decades.
provides not a Jot nor a Tittle of evidence…it is a ideological SPEECH.
***
YOU CLAIM….no increase in temps on UAH !
UAH versus RSS
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/LT-UAH-versus-RSS.gif
The 1 big dip in temps….take a look at when Mt. Pinatubo erupted…and cooled the earth
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/CRU_Norway_Raw.gif
Kooi, you say “YOU CLAIM….no increase in temps on UAH !”
Given that I said no such thing, you clearly have not understand what I am saying. UAH shows about 0.25 degrees C of warming, but it is all coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle, hence all natural. What I said is that there is no evidence of GHG warming, not that there is no warming no warming.
As for the rest, beefing up a convenience sample does not change the fact that no valid inference can be made for the population as a whole. Statistical sampling theory is based on probability theory so it requires a random sample of the population. This is a fundamental requirement.
In this case the population is all of the points on the Earth’s surface and the parameter to be sampled is the temperature change at each point over time. We have nothing like that. In fact there have been no fixed stations in the oceans, and few on land outside of the developed countries, so we have no sampling data for most of the population. As convenience samples go, this one is extreme.
Regarding models you might look at my article today:
http://www.cfact.org/2017/12/26/proposed-principles-for-use-of-speculative-models-in-federal-rulemaking/.
Actually you cited your article which says :”
But the satellites show no such warming in the atmosphere over this period, where it should be if it were caused by greenhouse gases. The satellites show no warming at all over this crucial time. This zero warming strongly suggests that the surface statistical models are wrong.”
Yes, but the period referred to is 1978 to 1997, just prior to the giant El Nino that looks to have caused the only warming in the entire record. It is the the surface statistical model warming during this period that spawned the global warming scare, but the satellites say it never happened.
So attempting moving the goalpost a bit, then.
And rhetoric : “..spawned the global warming scare…”
Btw, interesting that you stopped responding : https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_greens_are_losing_the_international_climate_fight/#comment-3679180995
no fixed ocean stations…no…there are thousands of Smart Buoys.
WMO has 11,000+ widely dispersed Digital Stations around the world.
NASA and NOAA have a couple thousand….
Also tapped are nearly 20,000 Privately Owned and Operated Digital Weather Stations around nearly every city on Earth…
and
no I won’t look at another of your political Diatribes.
..
The smart buoys are not geostationary. They could be but it would be expensive. Some are moving as fast as ships because of ocean currents like the Gulf Stream. Stationary buoys would be swimming all the time so probably have to be nuclear powered.
But in any case we are talking about records going back to 1880, so the buoys are irrelevant. Almost all the records are from a few relatively small geographical areas, especially Europe and the US coasts.
My understanding is that the number of stations used in the HadCRU, GISS and NOAA models dropped dramatically over the last 50 years. It is argued by some statisticians that this alone may explain the warming.
The referenced article, which is not long, explains how the IPCC/CMIP modeling rules arbitrarily limit climate change to human causes, especially CO2. Then the IPCC concludes that only humans have caused climate change. This is circular reasoning, concluding what you first assume.
As you can see, my field is not about climate, it is about the reasoning about climate. I am a logician.
Statistically, might I say, the probability is that David Wojick’s posts are just spinning words to make a rhetorical argument for ulterior agenda rather than a rational one for honest purpose.
Buzzword bingo, conspiracy ideation, impossible expectations, redefinition, nitpick, sophism, reference to irrelevant authority, devil words, tribalism, name-calling, appeal to emotion, abuse of logical fallacy, backsliding, story-changing — the tricks of base debate and propaganda aimed to make the worse case seem the better: scrape these practices off these posts and we are left with only a dishonest motive. Statistically.
The Red Team model came out of the adversarial example of science and is entirely redundant in climate science at this late date, some six decades into the conversations started by Plass and Lamb about the earlier ideas of Callendar, Arrhenius and Tyndall. Everything in climatology has been Red Teamed since before any of us were born. Heck, the idea climate changes was proven by Lamb’s Red Team exercise attacking the static climate notion that had dominated until his work.
Nor is the ‘fundamental’ requirement of statistical sampling theory that the population be absolutely equally geographically distributed in time and space, but that the randomness of the sampling can be demonstrated. That demonstration has been made over and over again, by splitting data into reserve and working sets to show the results are indistinguishable. Further, the major works of expanding the time and space covered by observations, the more intense the predicted effects are shown, as in Cowtan & Way, or Mueller’s BEST project.
UAH is a shoddy piece of junk run by prejudiced administrators, compared to the datasets rejected on spurious complaints by Dr. (of semantics) Wojick. We are obliged to notice this bias in his data selection technique.
And El Nino cycle?
Really, Dr. Wojick, have you no regard for the intelligence of readers? No shame?
I have never suggested that proper sampling of the Earth’s surface would be uniformly distributed. In fact that would also be a bad sample. But a proper random sample would almost always include a lot of places in the oceans, as well as places on land where we have no historical data. Put another way, if we designed a system to properly sample the Earth’s surface, it would look nothing like the hugely lopsided distribution of stations that we presently have.
As for this argument — “splitting data into reserve and working sets to show the results are indistinguishable” — what puzzles me about it is that it cannot happen. If the overall data set has a significant distribution, as the local temperature anomalies certainly do, then the vast majority of subsets of that data will give results that are quite different from the whole set. They will also be very different from one another the vast majority of times.
So if someone is taking random subsets of the temperature data and consistently getting the same result, then something is very wrong.
There is no way to manipulate a convenience sample such that it will reliably tell you what the general population looks like.
Beyond that, I find it interesting, perhaps even telling, that alarmists cannot argue science without adding a lot of insults.
Suggested? David — may I call you ‘David’? — you flat out said exactly the words:
You change your story whenever faced with facts inconvenient to your argumentativeness, rather than admit your argument failed. This is a repeating pattern running throughout your posts. The very nature of credibility, of engagement, require good faith; you repeatedly show none, David.
Your puzzlement about standard techniques of statistics, your straw man restatements, your bland handwaving of wrong claims, these are not valid. They are logical fallacy Gish galloping along at breathless pace.
Don’t count this as insult: this is observation from available evidence. We do not know one another personally. We do not know what one anothers’ faces look like, so cannot insult each others’ looks. We do not know each others’ scents, so your sensitivity to personal attack cannot come from remarks I make about your odors. So while you can toss the label ‘alarmist’ about as a propaganda devil-word, a tribalism, you do not know me well enough to know how very far off the mark you are when tossing that vain sobriquet.
If you want to be told, I’m not about alarm, but about economy. In economic terms, your actions are identifiably taste-shifting, information-diluting, merchandising. You are, in short, apparently a shill for sellers who want to keep selling while failing to pay for their waste disposal to the private owners of lands and waters that provide waste disposal services. This makes you an agent of deadbeats, promoting theft of service from private landholders.
I would not feel insulted to have that said of me: were it ever true of myself, I would find it cause to amend my ways and be thankful for the insight; were it false, I would make relevant defense and clear the air.
The point of the Red Team exercise is not to create the debate, which as you point out is quite old. The point is to officially recognize the debate, which has yet to happen. We have officially recognized alarmism via stuff like the IPCC reports and the National Climate Assessments, etc. The government now needs to include skepticism.
Actually, read the IPCC reports. Long discussion on how there are no measurements supporting temperature rise being caused by natural forcings.
Science is debated every day. In every journal.
Debate is the opposite, enemy of science. Debate is the primitive practice of cultish ancient Greek political classes seeking to make the worse case seem the better by irrelevant reference to authority, abuse of logical fallacy, and manipulative appeal to emotion to sway an audience until the next debate. That’s how old debate is, and how wrong.
Science has its audience hold exact solely inference only from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation leads to amended or new inference.
Official recognition of debate? You mean like the Indiana Pi Bill? Of course you do. The fact is that there is official recognition already, from properly appointed jurists, applying the codified precedents of law in such measures as the Daubert standard.
You’re either wilfully ignorant of the actual state of things — which given your famed 1992 story we cannot call accidental or from naivete — or misrepresenting on purpose, again.
This shamelessness of yours, is it rooted only in greed, or is it from some past traumatic loss?
Was your candidate defeated in the Primaries, and you’re still nursing that ancient grudge? Was it Buchanan? Duke?
That is how EARTH WARMING has occurred over the last centuries that we have …….El Nino’s drive up the temp…there is a little adjustment…a plateau or a slight decline…then another El Nino and up they go again….
2014 thru 2017 are a RECORD in and of themselves…
A LARGE EL NINO….NO FOLLOWED by a cooling or a leveling off….but a continued record warming.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/temperature-figure2-2016.png
YOU SAY…I assume with a straight face…though I am smiling broadly at what you just said:
.
“The ocean statistics are even worse”
.
thousands of digital Ocean Buoys track and report a remarkable warming of the worlds oceans.
“….Putting Ocean Heating Into Perspective
The amount of global warming which has gone into the oceans over the past 55 years is quite impressive.
“The global linear trend of OHC2000 is 0.43×1022 J yr-1 for 1955-2010 which corresponds to a total increase in heat content of 24.0±1.9×1022 J”
This is an immense amount of energy being added to the oceans which Levitus et al. put into perspective (emphasis added):
“We have estimated an increase of 24×1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F).”
Levitus et al. note that of course this heat won’t be instantly transferred to the atmosphere (fortunately!), and that this comparison is simply intended to illustrate the immense amount of energy being stored by the oceans.
This heating amounts to 136 trillion Joules per second (Watts), which as Glenn Tramblyn noted in a previous post, is the equivalent of more than two Hiroshima “Little Boy” atomic bomb detonations per second, every second over a 55-year period. And Levitus et al. note that this immense ocean heating has not slowed in recent years – more of it has simply gone into the deeper ocean layers….”
https://skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2013_v5.6.png
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
The UAH graph shows just what I am talking about. There are three distinct phases.
From 1979 through 1997 we have an aperiodic oscillator. It is oscillating roughly about the -0.1 line, with no warming. From 1998 through 2002 we have the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle, which of course has no trend, being a single cycle. From 2002 until the end there is again an aperiodic oscillation with no warming. But the latter period is around 0.25 to 0.3 degrees warmer than the first flat period.
So yes there is warming, but it is all coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle. (If you cannot see this obvious pattern, then I cannot help you.)
There is simply no evidence of GHG warming in this pattern.
There is a little UAH FLY in your ointment !
FROM THOSE LEADING
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS.
.
A STUNNING ADMISSION:
The UAH’s Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy….
—both leading deniers?
or is that TOO,TOO, NEGATIVE FOR YOU ? ?
—reported just last month that the UAH data shows a
“Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 [of] +0.12 C [0.22F] per decade.”
NO PAUSE !
NO HIATUS !
sure as hell, NO COOLING !
SPENCER:
“my UAH cohort & boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching
between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is
undergoing SPURIOUS COOLING because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15
satellite which has a decaying orbit…”
Given the flat-step-flat pattern that I just explained, the overall linear trend is meaningless. Science is about specifics.
Plus we now have a fourth phase at the end, the recent El Nino-La Nina cycle that has yet to play out. It too might lead to a warming step, but it is too soon to tell. In any case there is still no evidence of GHG (or just CO2) warming. Oh and the pause is still there between the El Nino cycles, as well as from 1978 to 1997. It is almost all “pause.”
But I see that you would rather shout than listen. A common trait with alarmists.
And they get upset when called denialists….
“the supposed increase in Earth system heat content,”
“..no significant GHG warming at all.”
“..no observational evidence of any GHG warming..”
And the fallback after it will be pointed out there is no science supporting those claims
“..and in any case cannot be due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.”
Which point pretty directly to the funding of this degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic..”
There are nearly 1000 web site / Opinion Media…designed and funded to propagate the ‘MASSAGE’ of ANTI – GLOBAL WARMING….and INCOSEQUENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE….
…
thousands of blogs where RANK amateurs put their “OWN” spin on ANTI SCIENCE, ANTI LOGIC, ANTI GLOBAL WARMING.
…
TO FEED THOSE SITE, there have been set up 100+-
“THINK TANKS” to Critique any and all scientific reports, to find the most outrageous comments made by outlier science…
to create reports and studies the specifically refute major science studies.
…follow their references only to find that the references,
the appeals to authority…say nearly the exact opposite of what they are used express.
They intend to deluge science with science fiction.
Well said,
(Except not really necessary to denigrate science fiction, at least most of SF are based on some science ;-) )
Sorry, I guess I did denigrate SCI Fi….
I like Asimov etc….SHAME ON ME!
Why? Why have you been fighting climate alarmism more or less full time since 1992? What happened in 1992?
Follow the money, honey !!
In 1992 the US signed on to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Rio Treaty) making alarmism official Federal policy, which it sadly still is. A Red Team exercise could change this.
I had been off working in defense policy (the wacky world of weapons) when I heard about the UNFCCC, so I returned to the even wackier green policy world. In fact I recall the day I heard the news because I was lecturing at the Naval Research Laboratory on non-linear dynamics, also called chaos theory.
That the climate system is chaotic is very important. It might even explain all of the warming, because chaotic systems oscillate naturally under constant forcing. Constant solar input plus chaos could explain things like the Little Ice Age and the warming since then. There has been some research into this “chaotic climate hypothesis” but the concept is little known in the climate science community.
OK. Now I know what happened in 1992. But I am no closer to understanding why you feel it is so important to fight “alarmism”.
You are a bit like someone standing in a burning building insisting that there is no cause for alarm because the smoke detectors and/or sprinklers didn’t go off.
You also seem to be totally unaware that climate change is a SYMPTOM and not the problem. The problem is that for some considerable time (but especially the past 250 years), mankind has abused the planet, decimating biodiversity through overuse, over-fishing, over-population, polluting the soil, water and air, blowing up mountains, draining wetlands, draining aquifers and on, and on, and on.
Whether the earth is warming due to chaotic climate or carbon dioxide matters only to the extent that we can do something about the latter, and not much about the former.
“How do I get some of this money?”
Pretty sure the paper discusses sources ….. so maybe read it, and send requests.
Run for office as a Republican and you should get some of that money.
Thanks for your off the cuff, unresearched comments.
Paper referenced was published in 2013.
Plenty of time for any organization listed in the report to have written a formal rebuttal.
The numbers are probably right, Robert; it is their interpretation that is absurd. They are including the full budget of organizations with hundreds of employees, that have maybe one person doing climate stuff. Thus their numbers are two orders of magnitude too high.
For example, Cato has a eight story building full of people in downtown DC. I imagine their annual revenue is in thew tens of millions of dollars. They have just one person doing climate skepticism — Pat Michaels — and even he does not do it full time. They also fund occasional small outside projects, including by me. Here is an example:
https://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding
I doubt the climate alarmism related stuff amounts to one percent of their annual budget.
Again. The research is from 2013. So even in the world of “too slow” academic journals, there’s been plenty of time to write a rejoinder, a rebuttal, and comrehensively research piece.
Yet, all we get is your empty assertions.
6th graders, average 6th graders can’t get away with that.
Why should you, a degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” think it’s ok?
Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy
Jeffrey A. Harvey Daphne van den Berg Jacintha Ellers Remko Kampen Thomas W. Crowther Peter Roessingh Bart Verheggen Rascha J. M. Nuijten Eric Post Stephan Lewandowsky … Show more
BioScience, bix133, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix133
Published: 29 November 2017
“Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.”
“…we do have industry activists …”
Let’s see. Surface warming is probably not real, the polar bears are doing great and the Arctic sea ice decline is not evidence of global warming. So this article is standard alarmist trash, of which there is great stock in the “pal reviewed” literature and the politically correct scientific trade groups.
That blogs facilitate skepticism is true and a great thing. A way around the green and government propaganda. Here we are, doing good.
Three assertions unburdened by supportive information.
Your average 6th grader couldn’t do that on a persuasive essay or research project and get a passing grade.
“0 points
Created citations which were incomplete or inaccurate, and provided no way to check the validity of the information gathered.”
https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html
Yet, you, an adult, seem to think those rules don’t apply.
Interesting.
A bit on how those “…blogs facilitate skepticism…”
Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations ” This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.” http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx?la=en ” “The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes.” To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service. The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010. The data shows that these 91 organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities, Brulle notes.” Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/ There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere By Bart Verheggen https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/there-once-was-a-polar-bear-science-vs-the-blogosphere/ longer https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/ …and Then There’s Physics also discusses it at Polar Bears and Arctic sea ice https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/
“Surface warming is probably not real.”
“..decline is not evidence of global warming.”
Oh, let’s see. Who to trust? A self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” who can’t bring evidence
OR what the actual published science says:
The science:
A Student’s Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/
WHAT WE KNOW
THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide
Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/
European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu
Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu
republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/
George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org
EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124
And the science condensed :
D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}
• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}
• Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}
• It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}
• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}
• It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
SPM WG1 AR5
We should throw them the hell out of here, untwist the gun barrel in front of their building, and turn it into NRA Headquarters.
An ACTIVE environmental movement has been around since the 1800’s and the killer smog events throughout that century.
The primary goal is not power, or money; it is survival. Humans are changing the planet VERY RAPIDLY in ways that can be dangerous to ecosystems and to human civilization itself.
The environmental movement got going in earnest after Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which chronicled the damage being done to the environment by the indiscriminate use of pesticides, chiefly DDT. We almost lost bald eagles to DDT; but now that it has been banned, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and brown pelicans are back, baby. That is a good thing. If you regard Rachel Carson as a power-hungry authoritarian figure, you are laughably wrong.
Then the Cuyahoga River caught on fire…That was NOT a good thing.
The Montreal Protocol is another example of a societal response to a very real and present danger that science warned us about. Your right to pollute the atmosphere with chlorofluorocarbons must take a back seat to the rights of all of the ecosphere not to get fried by ultraviolet radiation. This is a fine example of mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon. The goal of this exercise of (environmental) “power” of international sanctions is not to subjugate people; it is to protect them from “the tragedy of the commons” that would ruin their lives.
So the “scares” that you deride are actually the warnings that scientific research NEEDS to contribute to the public discourse on the environmental effects of our economy. Environmentalism is your friend, even if you are not astute enough to realize it; or unless you are a venal sociopath like our current POTUS who doesn’t give a fig about anyone else, including posterity.
“In the climate case we do have industry activists whose goal is money making for their companies, especially the renewables industry.”
If you think that the fossil fuel industry is not spending BIG BUCKS to sow doubt about AGW, then you are not as smart as I was giving you credit for…
The weather keeps getting better and better in more and more places. So far our climate is just fine…. much better than our last climate (the Little Ice Age)
Yeah, the folks in Texas and Florida and Puerto Rico, etc. etc., had to really love THEIR climate this summer! Some mighty fine weather there, never better…
Your statement is WAY too subjective to count for much, but nice try. And remember; it isn’t the climate that is the problem, it is the climate CHANGE. Specifically, the RATE OF CHANGE of global temperature, which constitutes the threat…
How’s this: All extreme weather events are either in decline or show no trend at all. Texas, Florida and Puerto Rice enjoyed until this year one of the longest major hurricane droughts in the past 2 centuries.
Warmer is better. People prefer to retire in Florida, not Newfoundland. About an order of magnitude fewer people die annually from too much as from too much cold.
40% of the worlds humans live in the tropics. That’s projected to grow to 50% by mid-century.
How about come citations for some of these highly subjective opinions? Warmer is better? For polar bears and penguins? No….
How’s this: an actual link to an article that proves that virtually all categories of “extreme weather events” are increasing:
https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/features/extreme-weather/overview/
and
https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/features/extreme-weather/summer-storms/
“About an order of magnitude fewer people die annually from too much as from too much cold.”
Is this sentence representative of the care which you invest in your analyses? Just wondering…
Both links are just lies. I’m not going to go through every extreme weather event, but as for hurricanes, annual accumulated cyclonic energy peaked in the mid-1990’s as can be seen here:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=uHbUh0ey&id=A3D8312FFDAF78729FFF795CF7FC9D604A8C9F76&thid=OIP.uHbUh0eyfKgklJDq4tnIOgHaED&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2ficecap.us%2fimages%2fuploads%2fACE.jpg&exph=896&expw=1636&q=accumulated+cyclonic+energy&simid=608014367208442122&selectedIndex=27&ajaxhist=0
I wouldn’t believe Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth to give the correct time of day.
Force 3 and stronger tornadoes peaked in the 1970’s. You can google this for yourself.
Fires, floods, acreage under drought conditions have been stable (better: trendless) for decades.