The child leading the children (global warming alarmists), the new version of “the blind leading the blind”. I love the unicorn, rainbow, and cloud image on the shirt which says a lot about the wearer.
Climate Activism is totally NOT a religion. -which is why some teenager from Sweden was closed circuit broadcast into a Catholic Church in the U.S. much like Apple’s “1984” commercial:
Speaking of blind spots, reminded me of this research. This is a baffling issue to me as there is little difference in the ability of Democrats and Republicans in understanding science yet in the areas of climate change and energy particuarly, we find that even the highly educated conservatives are slower to accept the measurable changes when compared to their highly educated liberal peers.
" … And on some issues, science knowledge can have a more complicated, indirect role. When it comes to public views about climate and energy issues, partisanship appears to serve as an anchoring point in how people apply their knowledge.10 For example, a 2016 Pew Research Center survey found that 93% of Democrats with a high level of knowledge about science said climate change is mostly due to human activity, compared with about half (49%) of Democrats with low science knowledge who said this. By contrast, Republicans with a high level of science knowledge were no more likely than those with a low level of knowledge to think climate change is mostly due to human activity. The same pattern was found for people’s beliefs about energy issues. …"
It’s wonderful to see intelligent and informed young people all over the world leading the way. I hope that massive numbers of older people follow their lead.
One of the many reviews of John Cook’s absurd claim about solidarity on the topic of anthropogenic warming.
I am especially amused by this statistic gleaned from the very same data Cook used.
“…one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.”
A far cry from the garbage pedaled by the Holy Church of Global Warming. Oh, excuse me. “Climate Change”. Had to change the marketing package when the public began to realize they were being swindled.
Oh ignorant Andy is back at it. Hey Andy, your dumb reference says:
The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.
Well, he’s a certified liar because there warming has not tapered off to essentially nothing. From 2000 to 2016, the anomaly went up 0.5C. Oooppss!
He uses the old complaints by a handful of deniers - who had the opportunity to give their own view during Cook’s study, but did not. Bogus!
As for the usual bogus claims about Cook, here is a result from another survey (before Cook)
Anderegg et al. (2010) compiled a list of 908 researchers with at least 20 peer-reviewed climate publications. They found that:“≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change]”
In any case, the support by scientists (not just climate scientists) is grossly stacked against denier fictions.
We’ll all find Andy at the Church of Denial, praising the Orange Dotard. being blessed with holy oil shale oil wafers.
And the deniers have no answer for the fact that when climate modelers leave out human generated Greenhouse gases,the prediction is for a slightly cooler temperature than a few decades ago. No data supports that. It is warmer, and it’s human generated greenhouse gases.
And no, deniers, water vapor is not more important (at this time and the near future). At any given temperature, water vapor saturates! So it falls out as rain, snow, dew, fog, etc. Saturation means that water vapor will only increase slowly. Meantime CO2, methane and other gases generated by human activity do not saturate and drive the warming. Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for 9 days… CO2 for several decades.
Funny stuff. I’m going long on fossil fuel options. Many scientists are predicting a grand minimum that will last up to 50 years. Starting next year. Not quite as bad as the Maunder minimum but nothing to sneeze at either.
Of course, the same people whose failed temperature models told us Miami would be under water right now are telling us that the cooling impact of the minimum will be less than the warming impact they predicted….oh….wait.
In 1978 a scientific consensus estimated that the global temperature anomaly in 2000 would be 0.6C, pretty close to spot on.
Hansen’s 1988 predictions stand up very well when corrected for the fact that a year or two after his statements, the forcing due to CFCs began to decline. Which is an indication that humans do indeed impact the climate. Current anomaly agrees very well with Hansen’s value (after CFC correction).
So ignoring wild-butt claims from Andy, the science does work well.
Oh my! Many scientists are predicting a grand minimum that will last up to 50 years.
Andy does not provide a reference, or identities of said scientists etc. Just “many.” About the same number as the commies under his bed, I guess.
Andy also doesn’t bother to tell you this is based on sunspot numbers. We have 400 years of people counting sunspots. Predicting a grand minimum of 50 years is stretching the reliability of the data analysis. I speak as someone who has done more than a little data analysis in many fields of physics.
The variability of energy measured at the top of the earth’s atmosphere has been very, very small over the past 60 years (the period when we have had satellites in space). Approximately 1 part in 1360. The increase increase in temperature anomaly due to greenhouse gases has increased by about 1 part in 273 (Kelvin temperature scale). That’s not going to go away, and the increase in GHG will keep trying to drive up the temperature 365.25/7/24.
But let’s ignore reality and suppose that the “Grand Minimum” drops the temperature by 1C over 50 years. (I’d like to see a calculation for that!) A sudden plumment is output is unlikely, so early on and late in the period, the increase in GHG still matters. Worse, the total increase in GHG comes roaring back when the “Grand Minimum” ends, stronger than ever.
OK, I have looked over a paper which suggests that there will be a decrease in the amount of UV from the sun in wavelengths shorter than 2000 Angstroms. It is based upon analysis of stars similar to the sun. A reading of the paper indicates lots of room for error.
But the UV light mentioned above does not reach to the lower atmosphere. So the upper atmosphere may cool. But that will not include the troposphere. For that, you need to decrease radiation at longer wavelengths. I only read about the UV flux, and this leaves me unconvinced about other wavelengths.
This has a nice graph showing that the modification to global temperature increase is not terribly important. The curves keep rising, they do not fall, as I have indicated in my arguments above.
As with “God helps those who help themselves” Greta and the rest of the realists aren’t asking for belief, they’re asking/demanding action. Including actions that will be painful now, but could be the difference between “painful later” and “horribly painful at best” later.
As w/ any leftist position they themselves cannot debate as adults the strength and success of their argument is the number of children required to make it for them. This child is just the latest in a long line of useful children. I’ll go further…
You would have never heard her name if she hadn’t been discovered, promoted, SENT OVER ON A SOLAR POWERED BOAT that required a crew to fly over from Sweden and sail it back all in an effort to advance the MMGW agenda.
And if she wakes up tomorrow and says “I’ve re-thought my portion on the MMGW” she’ll be on a plane home Tuesday.
Too bad people like Andylit and Mike Lester have so little understanding of science such that they are prime examples of Dunning-Kruger, they know so little they have no concept of what they don’t know and an exalted opinion of their own competence. People like Baslim and me (both of us research scientists) don’t take a position on the basis of how many other people agree with us but rather on how convincing the data is after reading the papers and studying both the methods used and the data obtained. I am convinced of the reality of climate change as man-made by the data on carbon isotopes which directly fingerprints it to the burning of fossil fuels. However, this conclusion requires that one understands both the isotope kinetic effect in enzyme activity and the role photosynthesis in carbon fixation (i.e., some chemistry). I don’t need to hear agreement from others to make this determination from the data presented, but I DO need the background knowledge in chemistry and biochemistry.
Oh my. Looks like Baslim is really lit up again. All it takes is a little nudge and his childlike faith erupts like a volcano.
Don’t bother supplying any information that conflicts with his views. You see, he is a “scientist” (crowd sighs “ooooh”) and cannot possibly be wrong. All who dare to offer an alternative to his doctrine are condemned as heretics, cast into the pit and forever doomed to wear the scarlet letter.
No matter who or what you bring to the table you are a heretic. Any data source that does not support the mantra is obviously false, wrong, fake, the product of a feeble mind incapable of reaching the lofty heights of climate enlightenment. All can be explained and discarded with a simple flick of the charts. Exclude a year here, “adjust” a data point there and voila! Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain.
Settled science. The faithful no longer use that phrase in public, just as they no longer use the term “global warming”. Those terms are linked to the failed marketing campaign developed decades ago.
The funny part is that they almost made it. The initial introduction of the theory sort of made sense, and the early “data” supported it. However, as attempts to independently duplicate the findings began to fail, the original authors became shrill and abusive. Proponents issued bizarre predictions of short term doom, flooded cities, an ice free arctic circle, glaciers eliminated.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! 40 years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
None of it happened and the public became “woke”.
In another 10 years, the predictions will be the same, the results will be the same. In 20 we will all look back and shake our heads over how we almost got hustled into converting the world into the third world.
Andy has no science based evidence to counter what I say. Just conspiracy theory. How unscientific. How self-serving.
And it is global warming Andy. Always has been. Because global means including the oceans. Which affect climate. Change the heat contained by the ocean and you change the dynamics, which makes for climate change. And there was never a “pause” in the heating of the ocean depths. A point I repeatedly made here several years ago.
I was never Greta Thunberg, but I did start my activism when I was sixteen. I went to my first big anti-Vietnam protest march back in 1965, all on my own, with no brainwashing from any adult. I didn’t tell my parents I was going, because I thought they might disapprove. When I came home I kind of nervously told my Dad (who was a high-level federal government executive), and he more or less said, “Well, that’s interesting. What was it like?” He trusted me to make my own decisions. (Well, not about everything.) So it makes total sense to me that young people are protesting. More power to them. I will support them.
And there you have it. Junk science will always win. Because Baslim and the rest of the faithful say it must be so.
You see, only they have good science. All who oppose them are mentally challenged. Conspiracy nuts. No source that conflicts with the mantra can possibly be “science based”. Especially when it comes from scientists who disagree with the mantra.
Catch-22. Only good science can be used to contest the mantra. But good science supports the mantra, so any conflict can only be the result of bad science. Al Gore says it is so, and so it must be.
How science really works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller):
Berkeley Earth
In October 2011, Muller wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, concerning his work with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project:
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.18
While the BEST project did not delve into the proxy data sets used in the “hockey stick”, the importance of the work regarding the modern temperature record is explained on the BEST web site:
Existing data used to show global warming have met with much criticism. The Berkeley Earth project attempts to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses by making available an open record to enable rapid response to further criticism and suggestions. Our results include our best estimate for the global temperature change and our estimates of the uncertainties in the record.19
On July 28, 2012, he stated, “[G]lobal warming [is] real …. Humans are almost entirely the cause.”3
You had us in the palms of your hands (early on) but you just couldn’t help yourselves. You engaged in hysteria and chest beating predictions of short term DOOM, and none of it happened.
For 2 decades you have been caught lying, cooking the books, exaggerating and just being wrong.
You did this to yourselves. You destroyed your own credibility.
So we finally get down to the last bitter argument from Andy. He can’t refute the science so he diverts to a layman he doesn’t like to put blame on the scientists for his failure to do disprove the data and to justify his righteous indignation in being in a position which he knows is untenable. “It’s all Gore’s fault I don’t believe the science.” Not that any of us have ever cited Gore as an expert or source of data, but that’s Andy for you, and that’s a case of truly lacking credibility from his side.
Well, Andy, when did you actually offer any real science?
Let’s examine the “Grand Minimum” stuff. There are indeed papers which use proxy data to reconstruct as far back as 9400 years. Ah, proxy data! That stuff that sends Michael Mann haters into foaming frenzies! LOL.
Spectral UV irradiance during the historical MM is usually inferred from time series reconstructions grounded by the distribution of solar surface features over the course of current cycles or by geophysical proxies
So 9000 years of proxy data and 400 years of sunspot data. Do I hear any complaints from the deniers?
Limitations with this study include the small sample size, unknown quality of the flux calibration, and possibly incomplete metallicity correction of log ${R}_{{HK}}^{{\prime} }$ values from the literature.
That small sample size refers to the number of sun-like stars considered. That sentence is why I said the study had room for error.
The graph by Maycock shows the results for running their experiment with no return to normal. In their paper, they do say that a few years after the end of the 50 GSM, the temperature profile returns to the values predicted without the GSM.This is exactly as I have said above. The GSM does not solve a problem, it just lessens it for a while.
Oh, and at the time Maycock et al wrote the article (publishe 2015), they upped to chance of a Grand Solar Minimum taking place to be 20%. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
And there they go again. Religious….excuse me….science fanaticism.
I have produced multiple links to many serious studies by serious…gasp…scientists. The problem is that those sources do not agree with the fanatics, therefore, they are absolutely and obviously wrong. So I don’t bother for the most part. I have decades of experience as an atheist debating the faithful. There comes a point when facts are useless.
And yes Martens, I reference a “layman” who claimed to be an expert and was given a Nobel prize for his efforts. A man embraced and elevated by the warming community. Your point man to the unwashed masses. Your mouthpiece. Your public face. Your liar.
These people just don’t get it. After 20 years of lies and mistakes we no longer trust them. Despite all the shrill insults and excuses, all the holier than thou admonitions, they can’t understand that we don’t TRUST them.
And by the way, I do my own research. I would never accept the word of a politician on science. It would be like accepting that a sharpie curve drawn on a weather forecast map by a politician is a scientific datum.
No Andy, that is what the deniers do. People who get funding from fossil fuel interests (via the conservative stink tanks) for example. It is not so much that they have sold out for silver and gold as that they have taken it into their minds that denying evidence that will lead to restrictions on commercial products is standing up for freedom. People like Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, who fought for the tobacco industry and then went on to fight for acid rain polluters and against the banning of CFCs. They lost all of those because science was against them. It is the same with many of the climate deniers.
The thing is, they are wrong about the science. Some argued that the science behind the models was too uncertain. Early on, this wasn’t stupid, but the measured data was already there and it just kept getting more complete and less arguable.
As I pointed out, Hansen’s intermediate model, after correction for the reduction in CFC levels, is now very, very close to the measured anomaly.
Skeptics like the Alabama Huntsville group have had their data examined by others who have determined that decay in the satellite orbit is the explanation for their contrary data. Scientists do make mistakes, but other scientists are always ready to check for errors. See what happened with the BICEP2 experiment. Or cold fusion.
There basically is no data not supporting global warming, whether it is surface data, deep ocean data, satellite data or proxy data like the changes in habitat and breeding/blossoming times for plants and animals. Plants and animals don’t know or care about human politics (they may be affected by politics — see Agent Orange). That data comes from the entire globe, not Washington DC. Lonecat gave you an example.
Contrary to what you believe, I make my judgements based on data from the fields, oceans and atmosphere. Climate models are useful, not for exact prediction, but for showing the trends.
It is the physics and chemistry which provide the crucial evidence. Martens has mentioned the importance of the isotope ratios for carbon. That is data that establishes that human use of fossil fuels is what is causing CO2 to increase.
The CO2 data from Mauna Loa (and other sites including Fiji, Barrow Alaska, LaJolla, Antarctica and Chile all show a 6ppm annual cycle. That means that the seasonal cycle of plant growth and death over an entire hemisphere is represented by a variation of just 6ppm, In the last 60 years that has no significant change. So more a 45% increase in CO2 has done nothing to encourage more plant growth (if it did, the variation would increase). That kills the arguments that more CO2 will be better. Nature is not cooperating with that theory. And some experiments have indicated some major grains will do more poorly, requiring increased planting with attendant impacts on soil and water.
The data goes on and on, in more detail and more non-climate science research.
Bas, I have to wonder why you bother. You are convinced that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, a fool or just plain evil. Or a combination.
I am just as certain that large segments of climate data are being deliberately manipulated to generate a predetermined outcome. It is my opinion. shared by a substantial percentage of Americans, that we are being pushed towards programs that will economically devastate pretty much all of the developed nations. Mostly for political purposes.
You quote sources, I quote sources. I post sources that debunk your sources, you post intense screeds attempting to trash my sources.
In any other situation you would ridicule and hound me for using any “what about” comparison, but there you are above, what abouting.
And I swing back to the basic point I made here on this forum.
You have lost the public relations war. Global Warming is neither a long or short term concern for a majority of Americans. Most believe it will have little or no impact on them. A substantial percentage like me understand that the concept of anthropogenic warming is an immense cash cow and political bludgeon.
Your public face, whether you chose it or not, is AOC, Al Gore, Leonardo diCaprio, and a host of ignorant left wing celebrities. Your various “conferences” are held at international dream vacation spots, with attendees each generating carbon footprints the size of small towns.
Your movement is a joke. A farce. The public face is one of grotesque hypocrisy.
AndyLit is quite correct in his concluding argument: all the science and evidence and facts are all wrong for the simple reason that Al Gore lives in a big house and DiCaprio flies in airplanes.
It isn’t worth trying to get the faithful to admit the science isn’t settled. It wouldn’t matter if Phil Jones renounced GW and admitted he cooked the books.
Fortunately, we still live in a Republic that mostly respects the Constitution. The last POTUS tried to “go around” us. Fortunately most of his administrative actions have been reversed.
In all of this discussion I have yet to see any actual presentation of data by Andy that contravenes the data that Baslim, lonecat and I have all presented in support of AGW. All we get from him is the accusation that the data we have presented is fudged to support a foregone conclusion but no analysis that demonstrates the supposed manipulation. Therefore, I call foul on Andy. The accusation of data manipulation and falsification in science is the most serious one that can be made against any scientist. Either justify the claim, Andy, or shut up.
RAGs over 4 years ago
That’s right Mikey, a clean environment and healthy kids is totally IMMORAL. Trump and his followers KNOW this and are trying to prevent it.
braindead Premium Member over 4 years ago
Lester and every other Trump Disciple knows that He is the Messiah.
Kurtass Premium Member over 4 years ago
Takes a big man to pick on a child. In trumps case, to rape a child.
Patjade over 4 years ago
Seems like the only thing that’s toast around here is the cartoonist.
wirepunchr over 4 years ago
At first glance I thought it was orange toast. (I gotta get some new glasses.)
Ontman over 4 years ago
I can hardly wait for Mr. Lester’s next cartoon. Will it make even less sense than this one?
superposition over 4 years ago
It makes you wonder about allowing children to read his children’s books if he feels there’s no hope for the future.
Oggi over 4 years ago
The child leading the children (global warming alarmists), the new version of “the blind leading the blind”. I love the unicorn, rainbow, and cloud image on the shirt which says a lot about the wearer.
mlester101 creator over 4 years ago
Climate Activism is totally NOT a religion. -which is why some teenager from Sweden was closed circuit broadcast into a Catholic Church in the U.S. much like Apple’s “1984” commercial:
https://twitter.com/carolmaczim/status/1175042510483349504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1175046809556791296&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weaselzippers.us%2F
superposition over 4 years ago
Speaking of blind spots, reminded me of this research. This is a baffling issue to me as there is little difference in the ability of Democrats and Republicans in understanding science yet in the areas of climate change and energy particuarly, we find that even the highly educated conservatives are slower to accept the measurable changes when compared to their highly educated liberal peers.
" … And on some issues, science knowledge can have a more complicated, indirect role. When it comes to public views about climate and energy issues, partisanship appears to serve as an anchoring point in how people apply their knowledge.10 For example, a 2016 Pew Research Center survey found that 93% of Democrats with a high level of knowledge about science said climate change is mostly due to human activity, compared with about half (49%) of Democrats with low science knowledge who said this. By contrast, Republicans with a high level of science knowledge were no more likely than those with a low level of knowledge to think climate change is mostly due to human activity. The same pattern was found for people’s beliefs about energy issues. …"
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/03/28/what-americans-know-about-science/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/28/u-s-concern-about-climate-change-is-rising-but-mainly-among-democrats/
Radish the wordsmith over 4 years ago
The extremist polluting Republicans hate her.
lonecat over 4 years ago
Greta Thunberg is a remarkable person, but she is not the issue. Climate change is the issue.
Lou Nattic, né Stan C over 4 years ago
Poor poor Mikey! The name Greta Thunberg will be remembered, as a soldier and a leader, long after Mike Lester is forgotten. Waaah!
DrDon1 over 4 years ago
Lester … This is “lame” on so many levels!
[ Perhaps you should stick to aiding & abetting #45! ]
PO' DAWG over 4 years ago
Move over David Hogg.
Librarylady over 4 years ago
I thank the universe this young woman is leading the cause – because she doesn’t want to. She wants everyone to believe the scientists.
lonecat over 4 years ago
It’s wonderful to see intelligent and informed young people all over the world leading the way. I hope that massive numbers of older people follow their lead.
DaleHopson over 4 years ago
Better than Jesus… she’s real!
Andylit Premium Member over 4 years ago
97% of scientists…..yeah. Right.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#359696e53f9f
One of the many reviews of John Cook’s absurd claim about solidarity on the topic of anthropogenic warming.
I am especially amused by this statistic gleaned from the very same data Cook used.
“…one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.”
A far cry from the garbage pedaled by the Holy Church of Global Warming. Oh, excuse me. “Climate Change”. Had to change the marketing package when the public began to realize they were being swindled.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
Oh ignorant Andy is back at it. Hey Andy, your dumb reference says:
The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.
Well, he’s a certified liar because there warming has not tapered off to essentially nothing. From 2000 to 2016, the anomaly went up 0.5C. Oooppss!
He uses the old complaints by a handful of deniers - who had the opportunity to give their own view during Cook’s study, but did not. Bogus!
As for the usual bogus claims about Cook, here is a result from another survey (before Cook)
Anderegg et al. (2010) compiled a list of 908 researchers with at least 20 peer-reviewed climate publications. They found that:“≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change]”https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
In any case, the support by scientists (not just climate scientists) is grossly stacked against denier fictions.
We’ll all find Andy at the Church of Denial, praising the Orange Dotard. being blessed with holy oil shale oil wafers.
And the deniers have no answer for the fact that when climate modelers leave out human generated Greenhouse gases,the prediction is for a slightly cooler temperature than a few decades ago. No data supports that. It is warmer, and it’s human generated greenhouse gases.
And no, deniers, water vapor is not more important (at this time and the near future). At any given temperature, water vapor saturates! So it falls out as rain, snow, dew, fog, etc. Saturation means that water vapor will only increase slowly. Meantime CO2, methane and other gases generated by human activity do not saturate and drive the warming. Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for 9 days… CO2 for several decades.
Andylit Premium Member over 4 years ago
Funny stuff. I’m going long on fossil fuel options. Many scientists are predicting a grand minimum that will last up to 50 years. Starting next year. Not quite as bad as the Maunder minimum but nothing to sneeze at either.
Of course, the same people whose failed temperature models told us Miami would be under water right now are telling us that the cooling impact of the minimum will be less than the warming impact they predicted….oh….wait.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
HA! HA! HA!
More ignorant Andy.
In 1978 a scientific consensus estimated that the global temperature anomaly in 2000 would be 0.6C, pretty close to spot on.
Hansen’s 1988 predictions stand up very well when corrected for the fact that a year or two after his statements, the forcing due to CFCs began to decline. Which is an indication that humans do indeed impact the climate. Current anomaly agrees very well with Hansen’s value (after CFC correction).
So ignoring wild-butt claims from Andy, the science does work well.
Oh my! Many scientists are predicting a grand minimum that will last up to 50 years.
Andy does not provide a reference, or identities of said scientists etc. Just “many.” About the same number as the commies under his bed, I guess.
Andy also doesn’t bother to tell you this is based on sunspot numbers. We have 400 years of people counting sunspots. Predicting a grand minimum of 50 years is stretching the reliability of the data analysis. I speak as someone who has done more than a little data analysis in many fields of physics.
The variability of energy measured at the top of the earth’s atmosphere has been very, very small over the past 60 years (the period when we have had satellites in space). Approximately 1 part in 1360. The increase increase in temperature anomaly due to greenhouse gases has increased by about 1 part in 273 (Kelvin temperature scale). That’s not going to go away, and the increase in GHG will keep trying to drive up the temperature 365.25/7/24.
But let’s ignore reality and suppose that the “Grand Minimum” drops the temperature by 1C over 50 years. (I’d like to see a calculation for that!) A sudden plumment is output is unlikely, so early on and late in the period, the increase in GHG still matters. Worse, the total increase in GHG comes roaring back when the “Grand Minimum” ends, stronger than ever.
So, just another denier who is shaky on science.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
OK, I have looked over a paper which suggests that there will be a decrease in the amount of UV from the sun in wavelengths shorter than 2000 Angstroms. It is based upon analysis of stars similar to the sun. A reading of the paper indicates lots of room for error.
But the UV light mentioned above does not reach to the lower atmosphere. So the upper atmosphere may cool. But that will not include the troposphere. For that, you need to decrease radiation at longer wavelengths. I only read about the UV flux, and this leaves me unconvinced about other wavelengths.
So, not at all convincing.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight
And contra Andy!:
https://ncas.ac.uk/en/climate-science-highlights/2567-possible-climate-impacts-of-a-future-grand-solar-minimum
This has a nice graph showing that the modification to global temperature increase is not terribly important. The curves keep rising, they do not fall, as I have indicated in my arguments above.
Real science trumps wishful denial.
Concretionist over 4 years ago
As with “God helps those who help themselves” Greta and the rest of the realists aren’t asking for belief, they’re asking/demanding action. Including actions that will be painful now, but could be the difference between “painful later” and “horribly painful at best” later.
mlester101 creator over 4 years ago
As w/ any leftist position they themselves cannot debate as adults the strength and success of their argument is the number of children required to make it for them. This child is just the latest in a long line of useful children. I’ll go further…
You would have never heard her name if she hadn’t been discovered, promoted, SENT OVER ON A SOLAR POWERED BOAT that required a crew to fly over from Sweden and sail it back all in an effort to advance the MMGW agenda.
And if she wakes up tomorrow and says “I’ve re-thought my portion on the MMGW” she’ll be on a plane home Tuesday.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
I heard of her months ago, when she first began speaking out.
The science is against you, you useful idiot for your masters.
martens over 4 years ago
Too bad people like Andylit and Mike Lester have so little understanding of science such that they are prime examples of Dunning-Kruger, they know so little they have no concept of what they don’t know and an exalted opinion of their own competence. People like Baslim and me (both of us research scientists) don’t take a position on the basis of how many other people agree with us but rather on how convincing the data is after reading the papers and studying both the methods used and the data obtained. I am convinced of the reality of climate change as man-made by the data on carbon isotopes which directly fingerprints it to the burning of fossil fuels. However, this conclusion requires that one understands both the isotope kinetic effect in enzyme activity and the role photosynthesis in carbon fixation (i.e., some chemistry). I don’t need to hear agreement from others to make this determination from the data presented, but I DO need the background knowledge in chemistry and biochemistry.
Andylit Premium Member over 4 years ago
Oh my. Looks like Baslim is really lit up again. All it takes is a little nudge and his childlike faith erupts like a volcano.
Don’t bother supplying any information that conflicts with his views. You see, he is a “scientist” (crowd sighs “ooooh”) and cannot possibly be wrong. All who dare to offer an alternative to his doctrine are condemned as heretics, cast into the pit and forever doomed to wear the scarlet letter.
No matter who or what you bring to the table you are a heretic. Any data source that does not support the mantra is obviously false, wrong, fake, the product of a feeble mind incapable of reaching the lofty heights of climate enlightenment. All can be explained and discarded with a simple flick of the charts. Exclude a year here, “adjust” a data point there and voila! Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain.
Settled science. The faithful no longer use that phrase in public, just as they no longer use the term “global warming”. Those terms are linked to the failed marketing campaign developed decades ago.
The funny part is that they almost made it. The initial introduction of the theory sort of made sense, and the early “data” supported it. However, as attempts to independently duplicate the findings began to fail, the original authors became shrill and abusive. Proponents issued bizarre predictions of short term doom, flooded cities, an ice free arctic circle, glaciers eliminated.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! 40 years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
None of it happened and the public became “woke”.
In another 10 years, the predictions will be the same, the results will be the same. In 20 we will all look back and shake our heads over how we almost got hustled into converting the world into the third world.
martens over 4 years ago
^As I said, Dunning-Kruger to the extreme. There is no hope in discussion with those who are either incapable or unwilling to learn.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
Andy has no science based evidence to counter what I say. Just conspiracy theory. How unscientific. How self-serving.
And it is global warming Andy. Always has been. Because global means including the oceans. Which affect climate. Change the heat contained by the ocean and you change the dynamics, which makes for climate change. And there was never a “pause” in the heating of the ocean depths. A point I repeatedly made here several years ago.
lonecat over 4 years ago
I was never Greta Thunberg, but I did start my activism when I was sixteen. I went to my first big anti-Vietnam protest march back in 1965, all on my own, with no brainwashing from any adult. I didn’t tell my parents I was going, because I thought they might disapprove. When I came home I kind of nervously told my Dad (who was a high-level federal government executive), and he more or less said, “Well, that’s interesting. What was it like?” He trusted me to make my own decisions. (Well, not about everything.) So it makes total sense to me that young people are protesting. More power to them. I will support them.
Andylit Premium Member over 4 years ago
And there you have it. Junk science will always win. Because Baslim and the rest of the faithful say it must be so.
You see, only they have good science. All who oppose them are mentally challenged. Conspiracy nuts. No source that conflicts with the mantra can possibly be “science based”. Especially when it comes from scientists who disagree with the mantra.
Catch-22. Only good science can be used to contest the mantra. But good science supports the mantra, so any conflict can only be the result of bad science. Al Gore says it is so, and so it must be.
martens over 4 years ago
How science really works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller):
Berkeley Earth
In October 2011, Muller wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, concerning his work with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project:
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.18While the BEST project did not delve into the proxy data sets used in the “hockey stick”, the importance of the work regarding the modern temperature record is explained on the BEST web site:
Existing data used to show global warming have met with much criticism. The Berkeley Earth project attempts to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses by making available an open record to enable rapid response to further criticism and suggestions. Our results include our best estimate for the global temperature change and our estimates of the uncertainties in the record.19On July 28, 2012, he stated, “[G]lobal warming [is] real …. Humans are almost entirely the cause.”3
Andylit Premium Member over 4 years ago
At the risk of being too simple for the great scientific minds here I will explain to you why you have lost the battle and the war.
Many years ago you chose a complete buffoon as your public face. As your champion. As your spokesman.
http://blog.jonolan.net/wp-content/gallery/miscellaneous/al-gore-naked-glacier-weekly-standard.jpg
You had us in the palms of your hands (early on) but you just couldn’t help yourselves. You engaged in hysteria and chest beating predictions of short term DOOM, and none of it happened.
For 2 decades you have been caught lying, cooking the books, exaggerating and just being wrong.
You did this to yourselves. You destroyed your own credibility.
martens over 4 years ago
So we finally get down to the last bitter argument from Andy. He can’t refute the science so he diverts to a layman he doesn’t like to put blame on the scientists for his failure to do disprove the data and to justify his righteous indignation in being in a position which he knows is untenable. “It’s all Gore’s fault I don’t believe the science.” Not that any of us have ever cited Gore as an expert or source of data, but that’s Andy for you, and that’s a case of truly lacking credibility from his side.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
Well, Andy, when did you actually offer any real science?
Let’s examine the “Grand Minimum” stuff. There are indeed papers which use proxy data to reconstruct as far back as 9400 years. Ah, proxy data! That stuff that sends Michael Mann haters into foaming frenzies! LOL.
Spectral UV irradiance during the historical MM is usually inferred from time series reconstructions grounded by the distribution of solar surface features over the course of current cycles or by geophysical proxies
So 9000 years of proxy data and 400 years of sunspot data. Do I hear any complaints from the deniers?
Limitations with this study include the small sample size, unknown quality of the flux calibration, and possibly incomplete metallicity correction of log ${R}_{{HK}}^{{\prime} }$ values from the literature.
That small sample size refers to the number of sun-like stars considered. That sentence is why I said the study had room for error.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa124/meta
The graph by Maycock shows the results for running their experiment with no return to normal. In their paper, they do say that a few years after the end of the 50 GSM, the temperature profile returns to the values predicted without the GSM.This is exactly as I have said above. The GSM does not solve a problem, it just lessens it for a while.
Oh, and at the time Maycock et al wrote the article (publishe 2015), they upped to chance of a Grand Solar Minimum taking place to be 20%. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
Andylit Premium Member over 4 years ago
And there they go again. Religious….excuse me….science fanaticism.
I have produced multiple links to many serious studies by serious…gasp…scientists. The problem is that those sources do not agree with the fanatics, therefore, they are absolutely and obviously wrong. So I don’t bother for the most part. I have decades of experience as an atheist debating the faithful. There comes a point when facts are useless.
And yes Martens, I reference a “layman” who claimed to be an expert and was given a Nobel prize for his efforts. A man embraced and elevated by the warming community. Your point man to the unwashed masses. Your mouthpiece. Your public face. Your liar.
These people just don’t get it. After 20 years of lies and mistakes we no longer trust them. Despite all the shrill insults and excuses, all the holier than thou admonitions, they can’t understand that we don’t TRUST them.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
Andy’s complaint is like complaining that because Columbus lied or miscalculated the size of the earth, we should not accept that it is round.
Andylit Premium Member over 4 years ago
Not really. My complaint is that Columbus screwed up but you continue to claim that he landed in India.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
The Indies were not India. He wanted to get to the Spice Islands, considered then as the East Indies. So I would never claim what you said.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
And by the way, I do my own research. I would never accept the word of a politician on science. It would be like accepting that a sharpie curve drawn on a weather forecast map by a politician is a scientific datum.
Andylit Premium Member over 4 years ago
Funny stuff. I do agree. Of course, you DO accept the word of politically motivated scientists.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
No Andy, that is what the deniers do. People who get funding from fossil fuel interests (via the conservative stink tanks) for example. It is not so much that they have sold out for silver and gold as that they have taken it into their minds that denying evidence that will lead to restrictions on commercial products is standing up for freedom. People like Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, who fought for the tobacco industry and then went on to fight for acid rain polluters and against the banning of CFCs. They lost all of those because science was against them. It is the same with many of the climate deniers.
The thing is, they are wrong about the science. Some argued that the science behind the models was too uncertain. Early on, this wasn’t stupid, but the measured data was already there and it just kept getting more complete and less arguable.
As I pointed out, Hansen’s intermediate model, after correction for the reduction in CFC levels, is now very, very close to the measured anomaly.
Skeptics like the Alabama Huntsville group have had their data examined by others who have determined that decay in the satellite orbit is the explanation for their contrary data. Scientists do make mistakes, but other scientists are always ready to check for errors. See what happened with the BICEP2 experiment. Or cold fusion.
There basically is no data not supporting global warming, whether it is surface data, deep ocean data, satellite data or proxy data like the changes in habitat and breeding/blossoming times for plants and animals. Plants and animals don’t know or care about human politics (they may be affected by politics — see Agent Orange). That data comes from the entire globe, not Washington DC. Lonecat gave you an example.Contrary to what you believe, I make my judgements based on data from the fields, oceans and atmosphere. Climate models are useful, not for exact prediction, but for showing the trends.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
It is the physics and chemistry which provide the crucial evidence. Martens has mentioned the importance of the isotope ratios for carbon. That is data that establishes that human use of fossil fuels is what is causing CO2 to increase.
The CO2 data from Mauna Loa (and other sites including Fiji, Barrow Alaska, LaJolla, Antarctica and Chile all show a 6ppm annual cycle. That means that the seasonal cycle of plant growth and death over an entire hemisphere is represented by a variation of just 6ppm, In the last 60 years that has no significant change. So more a 45% increase in CO2 has done nothing to encourage more plant growth (if it did, the variation would increase). That kills the arguments that more CO2 will be better. Nature is not cooperating with that theory. And some experiments have indicated some major grains will do more poorly, requiring increased planting with attendant impacts on soil and water.
The data goes on and on, in more detail and more non-climate science research.
It’s all of the data, not some of it.
Andylit Premium Member over 4 years ago
Bas, I have to wonder why you bother. You are convinced that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, a fool or just plain evil. Or a combination.
I am just as certain that large segments of climate data are being deliberately manipulated to generate a predetermined outcome. It is my opinion. shared by a substantial percentage of Americans, that we are being pushed towards programs that will economically devastate pretty much all of the developed nations. Mostly for political purposes.
You quote sources, I quote sources. I post sources that debunk your sources, you post intense screeds attempting to trash my sources.
In any other situation you would ridicule and hound me for using any “what about” comparison, but there you are above, what abouting.
And I swing back to the basic point I made here on this forum.
You have lost the public relations war. Global Warming is neither a long or short term concern for a majority of Americans. Most believe it will have little or no impact on them. A substantial percentage like me understand that the concept of anthropogenic warming is an immense cash cow and political bludgeon.
Your public face, whether you chose it or not, is AOC, Al Gore, Leonardo diCaprio, and a host of ignorant left wing celebrities. Your various “conferences” are held at international dream vacation spots, with attendees each generating carbon footprints the size of small towns.
Your movement is a joke. A farce. The public face is one of grotesque hypocrisy.
NeoconMan over 4 years ago
AndyLit is quite correct in his concluding argument: all the science and evidence and facts are all wrong for the simple reason that Al Gore lives in a big house and DiCaprio flies in airplanes.
So there!
Ppffhhtt!
Andylit Premium Member over 4 years ago
It isn’t worth trying to get the faithful to admit the science isn’t settled. It wouldn’t matter if Phil Jones renounced GW and admitted he cooked the books.
Fortunately, we still live in a Republic that mostly respects the Constitution. The last POTUS tried to “go around” us. Fortunately most of his administrative actions have been reversed.
martens over 4 years ago
In all of this discussion I have yet to see any actual presentation of data by Andy that contravenes the data that Baslim, lonecat and I have all presented in support of AGW. All we get from him is the accusation that the data we have presented is fudged to support a foregone conclusion but no analysis that demonstrates the supposed manipulation. Therefore, I call foul on Andy. The accusation of data manipulation and falsification in science is the most serious one that can be made against any scientist. Either justify the claim, Andy, or shut up.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 4 years ago
Which makes more sense?
https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/e/e2/Climate_change_which_makes_more_sense.png
All the dinosaurs feared the T-Rex over 4 years ago
Lester, I hope you feel like a big man with this one. Why don’t you go to a school yard and pull on some pig tails. What a joke…