The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTom Engelhardt Archive
Todd Miller: The Market in Walls Is Growing in a Warming World
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands. The U.S. got clobbered. Three category 4 or 5 Atlantic hurricanes of startling intensity, a record for any single season, whacked the country. Records were also set for rainfall and destruction. Two of those mega-storms, Irma and Maria, their power intensified by waters growing ever warmer thanks to fossil fuel emissions that continue to heat the atmosphere and the oceans, hit Puerto Rico, one glancingly, one full force. Then another hurricane (this time, a mega-storm of incompetence and negligence) completed the job. That, of course, was Hurricane Donald. As a result, three months after Irma first knocked out Puerto Rico’s power and two and a half months after Maria completely trashed the place, only 66% of that population has had its electricity restored. The latest estimate: the whole island won’t have it and other utilities fully up and working until at least February. (And if recent history is any judge, that’s probably an optimistic estimate.) The conservative guess is that $94 billion in damage has been done to Puerto Rico, giving the term “the dark ages” a new meaning in the twenty-first century. All of this should remind us that we’re living, as Todd Miller points out today, in an increasingly threatening new era.

Mind you, even as the planet’s temperature rises, humanity continues to set records when it comes to dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And here’s the grim irony that TomDispatch regular Miller explores in his latest post, as well as in his striking new book, Storming the Wall: Climate Change, Migration, and Homeland Security (which Dahr Jamail calls “essential reading” and Kirkus Review says is “a galvanizing forecast of global warming’s endgame and a powerful indictment of America’s current stance”): those least responsible for the damage, whether living in Bangladesh, Central America, or Syria, are feeling its brunt first. They’re the ones who will be uprooted and turned into climate-change refugees. Then, in their desperate journeys in search of safety, they’ll find doors slammed shut on them, walls built to stop them, and fingers pointed at them as if they were the plague, the worst of the worst.

ORDER IT NOW

That disparity in cause and effect can be felt even inside the United States. After all, Donald Trump would never have treated Hurricane Harvey’s flooding in the Houston area the way he did the damage in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, whose governor he identified as its “president.” (No, Donald, you are the president of the Virgin Islands and it is not a foreign land!) Behind such reactions lies a deep sense that “those” people are obviously not real Americans. Consider it an irony, then, that the inability to deal with damaged Puerto Rico like damaged Houston has led to the generation of this country’s first true onslaught of climate refugees (though others have preceded them) — tens of thousands of desperate islanders fleeing a home that has essentially ceased to function for the mainland U.S., especially Florida. Consider it a further irony that these are the only kinds of refugees Donald Trump can’t even try to stop from “coming” to this country because, of course, they’re already here. As for such refugees elsewhere, Todd Miller explains just what kind of dystopian nightmare is in store for them and, in a sense, for us all. As Bill McKibben says of Storming the Wall, “as this book makes crystal clear, people on the move from rising waters, spreading deserts, and endless storms could profoundly destabilize our civilizations unless we seize the chance to reimagine our relationships to each other.”

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Economics • Tags: Global Warming, Immigration 
Hide 25 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. The P.R. Island has been deserted by the young for decades, Orlando and the surrounding region are filthy with them. Why should they stay in that third-world corrupt shithole? They get to waltz right in, draw their minority-status privilege, go to college, grab their choice of jobs, it’s the cat’s ass for them. Since the storm? 200,000 more emptied into the U.S., thousands more served up daily.

    Will the last Rican just turn off the lights? Why bother rebuilding? For whom? Why? What end? End the corruption for god’s sake. Some land isn’t worth modernizing. This is one piece.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tengelhardt/todd-miller-the-market-in-walls-is-growing-in-a-warming-world/#comment-2109071
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. “Two of those mega-storms, Irma and Maria, their power intensified by waters growing ever warmer thanks to fossil fuel emissions that continue to heat the atmosphere and the oceans ….”

    Care to back that conjecture up with some real science?

    Read More
    • Agree: Realist
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. polistra says: • Website

    This carbon stuff is remarkably intelligent and selective. It can decide to prevent hurricanes in the Caribbean for 10 years, then suddenly strike hard.

    As any mathematician can tell you, a steady rise in the “cause” always leads to a random combination of ups and downs and nothings and weird variations in the “effect”.

    You can see this easily when you gradually increase the pressure on the gas pedal of your car. The car goes 120 for a few seconds, then stops for several years, then goes 250 for a minute, then goes backwards for a month, then spins wildly for several seconds, then drills down into the ground, then sings the Peruvian national anthem translated into Bantu.

    This is normal. Every driver experiences it every day. Just normal cause and effect.

    Read More
    • LOL: silviosilver, Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Hu Mi Yu says:

    Mind you, even as the planet’s temperature rises, humanity continues to set records when it comes to dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    According to the official numbers CO2 emissions leveled out last year, but the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. There is a serious problem with the agreed-upon carbon accounting rules that conflate “renewable” and “carbon-free” energy. Attempts to gloss this over by claiming “El Nino did it” won’t explain the fact that 19th century CO2 levels began to rise twenty years before emissions. So called renewable energy sources such as wood chips, biofuels and cow dung also put CO2 into the atmosphere where it stays. The only way to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration is to actively sequester carbon. This is a completely different approach from that advocated by the alarmists who have instead come up with a Morgenthau plan for the whole world based on crackpot religion.

    those least responsible for the damage, whether living in Bangladesh, Central America, or Syria, are feeling its brunt first.

    Those living in poverty also generate CO2. Draft animals generate it, fireplaces generate it, even our own breathing generates it. On the average we were generating one ton of carbon emissions per person before the industrial revolution. “Fossil” fuels largely replaced other unmeasured carbon-based energy sources, so their influence is overstated in the models.

    those mega-storms, Irma and Maria, their power intensified by waters growing ever warmer thanks to fossil fuel emissions that continue to heat the atmosphere and the oceans, hit Puerto Rico, one glancingly, one full force.

    This is not new. When I was young, we would read about mysterious destructive storms hitting Caribbean islands. There were no satellites, no radar images, no measurements. No one knows how intense those storms were.

    While the warming in the last 35 years has been obvious, nearly the same level of warming was observed in the 35 years between 1915 and 1950. The earth has been warming and the oceans rising ever since the end of the previous glacial period 12,000 years ago.

    Until we are able to control atmospheric CO2 by some means or other, we will have to live with the effects. The science is definitely not settled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    "So called renewable energy sources such as wood chips, biofuels and cow dung also put CO2 into the atmosphere"

    But, but, but.....electric cars! The electricity is free! It doesn't require a coal-fired plant to generate electricity so when I drive my Prius I'm doing my part by reducing my carbon footprint.

    Since no energy transition is free (Law of Entropy) I would tend to doubt that electric cars reduce CO2 emissions much at all. But I am open to rational persuasion. Of course, proponents advocate solar panels but how much carbon is involved in manufacturing them? Or windmills?
    , @Tsar Nicholas

    According to the official numbers CO2 emissions leveled out last year, but the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. There is a serious problem with the agreed-upon carbon accounting rules that conflate “renewable” and “carbon-free” energy.
     
    I can agree with what you're saying here to some extent but the spread between emissions and actual measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere may be attributable to a more sinister reason.

    What were once sinks - like the oceans and the Amazon rain forest - have ceased to be sinks and are now sources. In which case humanity's ability to influence matters has slipped out of its hands and runaway warming beckons.
    , @Alden
    Years ago there was a big fuss about the ozone layer being destroyed over Indonesia. "Scientists" blamed it on the fact that Indonesia is a huge country and too many people use wood fires for cooking.

    Switching from draft animals to fossil burning vehicles in the cities was one of the major public health advances in the last 10,000 years. What's worse, breathing CO2 or wading through manure every day?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Ben Frank says:

    Make Puerto Rico independent now!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. peterike says:

    Remember when Leftists used to be skeptical of what governments told them? Now they believe the global warming fairy tale from A to Z and never bother to ask, “Why might governments want us to believe this?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Jim says:

    All this hype about “unprecedented mega-storms” is ridiculous. I lived on Guam when I was a child 50 years ago and we had many typhoons. One blew out a wind gauge at 209 mph. On the part of the island where I lived the sustained wind was about 180 mph. Such storms are certainly very dangerous but they are nothing new.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Sparkon says:

    The man-made global warming scare relies on people’s ignorance about natural climate variation in Earth’s past, along with guilt, and fear.

    There have been many periods of sharp warming, and cooling on Earth long before humans could have played any possible role. For example, when the massive continental ice sheets receded in N. America and Europe, men were still running around with stone axes, hadn’t built any cities, didn’t even know how to write. Indeed, our written record of planet Earth goes back only about 5,000 years or so, and our continuous weather records are much shorter still, extending back into the past only a couple hundred years. For all our impressive scientific and technological advancement, we are still–relatively speaking, but in many ways–virtual ignoramuses about our own planet.

    Levels of atmospheric CO₂ have been higher in Earth’s past without setting off any runaway global warming. The Greenland ice cores and other proxies show that CO₂ lags temperature by as much as ~800 years. In other words, first temperatures rise, and then that warming is followed by increasing levels of CO₂.

    Some people think the rising CO₂ is a result of the warming oceans outgassing CO₂, which they do in the same way your soda or beer loses its fizz, or carbonation, as it warms.

    The evidence is that increasing atmospheric CO₂ is an effect of global warming, and not its cause.

    What makes the the Earth, and its oceans warm? Short answer: Nobody knows.

    CAGW, or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a good example of the logical fallacy known as special pleading. The pattern of this fallacy is to argue that some new factor or special circumstance changes, or over-rules, the previously prevailing dynamic, the so-called null factor, or default assumption.

    In short, the old rules no longer apply because of this new thing, which is the modern lifestyle and SUVs making too much CO₂, which is special CO₂ because it is man-made, and therefore not the same as old fashioned CO₂, which has never caused global warming, but that doesn’t matter, because all the massive belching and spewing and “dumping” of the trace gas must be having some effect, and besides, it was the hottest day ever last summer, &c.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    Some people think the rising CO₂ is a result of the warming oceans outgassing CO₂, which they do in the same way your soda or beer loses its fizz, or carbonation, as it warms.

    The evidence is that increasing atmospheric CO₂ is an effect of global warming, and not its cause.
     
    Because of feedback, CO2 is both a cause and an effect of warming. Either one may precede the other. In the case of the sudden large transitions at the end of glacial periods reflected in the ice cores, the CO2 releases were triggered by variations in the earth's orbit called Milankovitch effects: the warming precedes the CO2 rise. However the CO2 rise is too large to be explained by Milankovitch warming alone and results in a sustained climate shift.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. TG says:

    In the long run it may well be a bad idea to keep dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (‘if you don’t understand something that is critical to your survival don’t mess with it stupid’), but much has been falsely blamed on ‘climate change.’

    Especially ‘drought.’ Ever wonder why virtually every story blaming the flood of refugees from some miserably poor land on ‘climate change caused drought’ NEVER shows the historical annual total precipitation? Because climate change is not the answer. The problem is too-rapid population growth, which is so often due to cheap-labor government policies. How many of these countries would be running out of water, if they had the population that they did 30 or even 20 years ago? Basically, none of them.

    And even the increased dumping of carbon dioxide is primarily due to population increases, not per-capita increases. Per capita energy consumption in the US peaked in 1970, it’s down quite a bit already – but as we are on track to double our 1970 population by 2040, and then quadruple it before the end of the century, so what?

    Bottom line: if population keeps being forced upwards, things will get more and more miserable for the average person no matter what the climate does – and if the climate does get bad, the primary reason will be the massive increase in population.

    To paraphrase Einstein, ‘climate change’ is not even wrong. It’s a distraction from the main event.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    climate change caused drought
     
    Paleontology suggests that we are headed for a warmer and wetter future. Drought is a natural phenomon that is unrelated to CO2. However it can be caused by human activity. For example the huge California central valley is shown on early Spanish maps as a huge "cienega o lago" (marsh or lake). Today it is a dry almost desert. This desiccation has resulted from huge flood control and water projects beginning with the American Canal around Sacramento. The loss of this warm shallow inland sea has resulted in a gradual drying of the region. The tule fogs that were a consistent feature of travel in the valley when I was young are gone today. There is an Indian museum in Sacramento that shows this drying out.

    And even the increased dumping of carbon dioxide is primarily due to population increases, not per-capita increases. Per capita energy consumption in the US peaked in 1970, it’s down quite a bit already – but as we are on track to double our 1970 population by 2040, and then quadruple it before the end of the century, so what?

     
    I agree, but I choose not to be defeatist about it. We know how to control atmospheric CO2. We do it in submarines and space missions. There is also the Bioshphere 2 project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2).

    We still have a century, and the technology is possible. We lack only the will. It is a difficult project, but overall the future of the earth has never looked brighter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Realist says:

    There is absolutely no proof of AGW.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. @Hu Mi Yu

    Mind you, even as the planet’s temperature rises, humanity continues to set records when it comes to dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
     
    According to the official numbers CO2 emissions leveled out last year, but the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. There is a serious problem with the agreed-upon carbon accounting rules that conflate "renewable" and "carbon-free" energy. Attempts to gloss this over by claiming "El Nino did it" won't explain the fact that 19th century CO2 levels began to rise twenty years before emissions. So called renewable energy sources such as wood chips, biofuels and cow dung also put CO2 into the atmosphere where it stays. The only way to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration is to actively sequester carbon. This is a completely different approach from that advocated by the alarmists who have instead come up with a Morgenthau plan for the whole world based on crackpot religion.

    those least responsible for the damage, whether living in Bangladesh, Central America, or Syria, are feeling its brunt first.
     
    Those living in poverty also generate CO2. Draft animals generate it, fireplaces generate it, even our own breathing generates it. On the average we were generating one ton of carbon emissions per person before the industrial revolution. "Fossil" fuels largely replaced other unmeasured carbon-based energy sources, so their influence is overstated in the models.

    those mega-storms, Irma and Maria, their power intensified by waters growing ever warmer thanks to fossil fuel emissions that continue to heat the atmosphere and the oceans, hit Puerto Rico, one glancingly, one full force.
     
    This is not new. When I was young, we would read about mysterious destructive storms hitting Caribbean islands. There were no satellites, no radar images, no measurements. No one knows how intense those storms were.

    While the warming in the last 35 years has been obvious, nearly the same level of warming was observed in the 35 years between 1915 and 1950. The earth has been warming and the oceans rising ever since the end of the previous glacial period 12,000 years ago.

    Until we are able to control atmospheric CO2 by some means or other, we will have to live with the effects. The science is definitely not settled.

    “So called renewable energy sources such as wood chips, biofuels and cow dung also put CO2 into the atmosphere”

    But, but, but…..electric cars! The electricity is free! It doesn’t require a coal-fired plant to generate electricity so when I drive my Prius I’m doing my part by reducing my carbon footprint.

    Since no energy transition is free (Law of Entropy) I would tend to doubt that electric cars reduce CO2 emissions much at all. But I am open to rational persuasion. Of course, proponents advocate solar panels but how much carbon is involved in manufacturing them? Or windmills?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
    I probably shouldn't take your post seriously, but...

    Mostly a Prius just makes more efficient use of fuel. It is not primarily an electric car. Everyone can decide for themselves how important this is. Personally I like the Prius. It has its limitations, but it generates less CO2 than my diesel truck or a even a horse.

    In my area electricity is primarily hydroelectric and wind generated.

    Since no energy transition is free (Law of Entropy) I would tend to doubt that electric cars reduce CO2 emissions much at all. But I am open to rational persuasion.
     
    You need a better understanding of science to be susceptible to rational persuasion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Sparkon
    The man-made global warming scare relies on people's ignorance about natural climate variation in Earth's past, along with guilt, and fear.

    There have been many periods of sharp warming, and cooling on Earth long before humans could have played any possible role. For example, when the massive continental ice sheets receded in N. America and Europe, men were still running around with stone axes, hadn't built any cities, didn't even know how to write. Indeed, our written record of planet Earth goes back only about 5,000 years or so, and our continuous weather records are much shorter still, extending back into the past only a couple hundred years. For all our impressive scientific and technological advancement, we are still--relatively speaking, but in many ways--virtual ignoramuses about our own planet.

    Levels of atmospheric CO₂ have been higher in Earth's past without setting off any runaway global warming. The Greenland ice cores and other proxies show that CO₂ lags temperature by as much as ~800 years. In other words, first temperatures rise, and then that warming is followed by increasing levels of CO₂.

    Some people think the rising CO₂ is a result of the warming oceans outgassing CO₂, which they do in the same way your soda or beer loses its fizz, or carbonation, as it warms.

    The evidence is that increasing atmospheric CO₂ is an effect of global warming, and not its cause.

    What makes the the Earth, and its oceans warm? Short answer: Nobody knows.

    CAGW, or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a good example of the logical fallacy known as special pleading. The pattern of this fallacy is to argue that some new factor or special circumstance changes, or over-rules, the previously prevailing dynamic, the so-called null factor, or default assumption.

    In short, the old rules no longer apply because of this new thing, which is the modern lifestyle and SUVs making too much CO₂, which is special CO₂ because it is man-made, and therefore not the same as old fashioned CO₂, which has never caused global warming, but that doesn't matter, because all the massive belching and spewing and "dumping" of the trace gas must be having some effect, and besides, it was the hottest day ever last summer, &c.

    Some people think the rising CO₂ is a result of the warming oceans outgassing CO₂, which they do in the same way your soda or beer loses its fizz, or carbonation, as it warms.

    The evidence is that increasing atmospheric CO₂ is an effect of global warming, and not its cause.

    Because of feedback, CO2 is both a cause and an effect of warming. Either one may precede the other. In the case of the sudden large transitions at the end of glacial periods reflected in the ice cores, the CO2 releases were triggered by variations in the earth’s orbit called Milankovitch effects: the warming precedes the CO2 rise. However the CO2 rise is too large to be explained by Milankovitch warming alone and results in a sustained climate shift.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon

    the CO2 releases were triggered by variations in the earth’s orbit called Milankovitch effects:
     
    No, I don't think so. Long term, slow acting Milankovitch Cycles cannot account for the intensity of the observed climatic variations reflected in the proxies, nor can the relatively modest effect of these MCs be the cause of more sudden, much shorter, and relatively recent climatic changes.

    https://www.conncoll.edu/news/images/mag/winter2014/graph.jpg
    Image: Connecticut College

    These MCs are theorized to be ~100,000 years, 41,000 years, even 21,000 years in length. The debate rages. Whatever the case, those MC periods are far too long to be responsible for the relatively much shorter but rather sharp climatic changes that have occurred several times within the historical era during the last 5,000 years: the so-called Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and Modern Warm Periods, which are separated in every case by a cooler period. One of those cool spells corresponds with the so-called Dark Ages that occurred between the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

    No force or effect whose shortest cycle is 21,000 years is likely to be responsible for multiple changes that occurred within 5,000 years.

    I would argue that some other significant factor must be playing a large role in Earth's climate since neither Milankovitch Cycles, nor CO₂ could be a big player in the ups and downs of Earth's climate over the past 5,000 years. Obviously, the most likely candidate is the Sun, and something affecting its output, either by internal action, external energy*, or perhaps filtering and blockage by passing dust, or other objects.

    (* Includes cosmic rays, electrical energy, magnetic forces, devious aliens, and manipulative deities)

    The record suggests that warm periods are good for civilization; cool periods, not so much. It should be noted however, that the Renaissance is fairly contemporaneous with the Little Ice Age, a fact which leads to interesting speculations. Nevertheless, for the common peasant of the day, deteriorating climatic conditions during the Little Ice Age may have been a matter of life and death. In the face of their troubles, many people turned to superstition, and blamed it all on witches.

    Not CO₂ mind you, but witches!

    Indeed, in 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued his Papal Bull Summis desiderantes affectibus describing the effects of witchcraft, and encouraging the persecution of witches. Thousands of innocent old hags and crones, and eventually many other people, were accused of witchcraft, condemned to death, and burned alive at the stake.

    "[m]any persons of both sexes, unmindful of their own salvation and straying from the Catholic Faith, have abandoned themselves to devils, incubi and succubi, and by their incantations, spells, conjurations, and other accursed charms and crafts, enormities and horrid offences, have slain infants yet in the mother's womb, as also the offspring of cattle, have blasted the produce of the earth (...) they do not shrink from committing and perpetrating the foulest abominations and filthiest excesses to the deadly peril of their own souls, (...) the abominations and enormities in question remain unpunished not without open danger to the souls of many and peril of eternal damnation."
     
    Edited for mercy, but if you read the whole Bull, it almost sounds like A complete list of things caused by global warming. which would make any witch proud.

    But we've come a long way baby, and today it's all about the deadly trace gas CO₂, the molecule that roared, supposedly kept too many photons from flying off into space right away, and set in motion the changes that gave us expensive light bulbs, where once we had cheap ones.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @ThreeCranes
    "So called renewable energy sources such as wood chips, biofuels and cow dung also put CO2 into the atmosphere"

    But, but, but.....electric cars! The electricity is free! It doesn't require a coal-fired plant to generate electricity so when I drive my Prius I'm doing my part by reducing my carbon footprint.

    Since no energy transition is free (Law of Entropy) I would tend to doubt that electric cars reduce CO2 emissions much at all. But I am open to rational persuasion. Of course, proponents advocate solar panels but how much carbon is involved in manufacturing them? Or windmills?

    I probably shouldn’t take your post seriously, but…

    Mostly a Prius just makes more efficient use of fuel. It is not primarily an electric car. Everyone can decide for themselves how important this is. Personally I like the Prius. It has its limitations, but it generates less CO2 than my diesel truck or a even a horse.

    In my area electricity is primarily hydroelectric and wind generated.

    Since no energy transition is free (Law of Entropy) I would tend to doubt that electric cars reduce CO2 emissions much at all. But I am open to rational persuasion.

    You need a better understanding of science to be susceptible to rational persuasion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    "You need a better understanding of science to be susceptible to rational persuasion."

    What? You claim that energy is not lost (dissipated) in converting from chemical to electrical energy? Or vice versa? You're nuts.

    That driving your Prius gives you a warm glow inside is completely irrelevant to the issue of overall energy savings of electric cars.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @TG
    In the long run it may well be a bad idea to keep dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere ('if you don't understand something that is critical to your survival don't mess with it stupid'), but much has been falsely blamed on 'climate change.'

    Especially 'drought.' Ever wonder why virtually every story blaming the flood of refugees from some miserably poor land on 'climate change caused drought' NEVER shows the historical annual total precipitation? Because climate change is not the answer. The problem is too-rapid population growth, which is so often due to cheap-labor government policies. How many of these countries would be running out of water, if they had the population that they did 30 or even 20 years ago? Basically, none of them.

    And even the increased dumping of carbon dioxide is primarily due to population increases, not per-capita increases. Per capita energy consumption in the US peaked in 1970, it's down quite a bit already - but as we are on track to double our 1970 population by 2040, and then quadruple it before the end of the century, so what?

    Bottom line: if population keeps being forced upwards, things will get more and more miserable for the average person no matter what the climate does - and if the climate does get bad, the primary reason will be the massive increase in population.

    To paraphrase Einstein, 'climate change' is not even wrong. It's a distraction from the main event.

    climate change caused drought

    Paleontology suggests that we are headed for a warmer and wetter future. Drought is a natural phenomon that is unrelated to CO2. However it can be caused by human activity. For example the huge California central valley is shown on early Spanish maps as a huge “cienega o lago” (marsh or lake). Today it is a dry almost desert. This desiccation has resulted from huge flood control and water projects beginning with the American Canal around Sacramento. The loss of this warm shallow inland sea has resulted in a gradual drying of the region. The tule fogs that were a consistent feature of travel in the valley when I was young are gone today. There is an Indian museum in Sacramento that shows this drying out.

    And even the increased dumping of carbon dioxide is primarily due to population increases, not per-capita increases. Per capita energy consumption in the US peaked in 1970, it’s down quite a bit already – but as we are on track to double our 1970 population by 2040, and then quadruple it before the end of the century, so what?

    I agree, but I choose not to be defeatist about it. We know how to control atmospheric CO2. We do it in submarines and space missions. There is also the Bioshphere 2 project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2).

    We still have a century, and the technology is possible. We lack only the will. It is a difficult project, but overall the future of the earth has never looked brighter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I drive through the central valley several times a year on different freeways. If it's a desert why do I see nothing but fields full of green crops, trees and bushes? Why does the central valley supply most of the fruits and vegetables fro the entire country if its nothing but a dry desert?

    I know its a lot due to irrigation projects, but millions of people live in that "dry desert" and they get their water from wells and lakes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Hu Mi Yu
    I probably shouldn't take your post seriously, but...

    Mostly a Prius just makes more efficient use of fuel. It is not primarily an electric car. Everyone can decide for themselves how important this is. Personally I like the Prius. It has its limitations, but it generates less CO2 than my diesel truck or a even a horse.

    In my area electricity is primarily hydroelectric and wind generated.

    Since no energy transition is free (Law of Entropy) I would tend to doubt that electric cars reduce CO2 emissions much at all. But I am open to rational persuasion.
     
    You need a better understanding of science to be susceptible to rational persuasion.

    “You need a better understanding of science to be susceptible to rational persuasion.”

    What? You claim that energy is not lost (dissipated) in converting from chemical to electrical energy? Or vice versa? You’re nuts.

    That driving your Prius gives you a warm glow inside is completely irrelevant to the issue of overall energy savings of electric cars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    What? You claim that energy is not lost (dissipated) in converting from chemical to electrical energy? Or vice versa? You’re nuts.
     
    I made no such claim. You cited the law of entropy, which is not the relevant science. Also the efficiency of a chemical reaction is not related to whether it produces CO2. And as I pointed out, we have hydro and wind power here, so there is no chemical reaction involved.

    That driving your Prius gives you a warm glow inside is completely irrelevant to the issue of overall energy savings of electric cars.

     

    The Prius isn't really an electric car. The thread is about CO2 and warming, not energy saving. The Prius doesn't give me a warm glow, because the heater is weak.

    I drive a Prius, because I like the Prius. I eat bean sprouts, because I like bean sprouts. What's it to you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @ThreeCranes
    "You need a better understanding of science to be susceptible to rational persuasion."

    What? You claim that energy is not lost (dissipated) in converting from chemical to electrical energy? Or vice versa? You're nuts.

    That driving your Prius gives you a warm glow inside is completely irrelevant to the issue of overall energy savings of electric cars.

    What? You claim that energy is not lost (dissipated) in converting from chemical to electrical energy? Or vice versa? You’re nuts.

    I made no such claim. You cited the law of entropy, which is not the relevant science. Also the efficiency of a chemical reaction is not related to whether it produces CO2. And as I pointed out, we have hydro and wind power here, so there is no chemical reaction involved.

    That driving your Prius gives you a warm glow inside is completely irrelevant to the issue of overall energy savings of electric cars.

    The Prius isn’t really an electric car. The thread is about CO2 and warming, not energy saving. The Prius doesn’t give me a warm glow, because the heater is weak.

    I drive a Prius, because I like the Prius. I eat bean sprouts, because I like bean sprouts. What’s it to you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Hu Mi Yu

    Mind you, even as the planet’s temperature rises, humanity continues to set records when it comes to dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
     
    According to the official numbers CO2 emissions leveled out last year, but the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. There is a serious problem with the agreed-upon carbon accounting rules that conflate "renewable" and "carbon-free" energy. Attempts to gloss this over by claiming "El Nino did it" won't explain the fact that 19th century CO2 levels began to rise twenty years before emissions. So called renewable energy sources such as wood chips, biofuels and cow dung also put CO2 into the atmosphere where it stays. The only way to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration is to actively sequester carbon. This is a completely different approach from that advocated by the alarmists who have instead come up with a Morgenthau plan for the whole world based on crackpot religion.

    those least responsible for the damage, whether living in Bangladesh, Central America, or Syria, are feeling its brunt first.
     
    Those living in poverty also generate CO2. Draft animals generate it, fireplaces generate it, even our own breathing generates it. On the average we were generating one ton of carbon emissions per person before the industrial revolution. "Fossil" fuels largely replaced other unmeasured carbon-based energy sources, so their influence is overstated in the models.

    those mega-storms, Irma and Maria, their power intensified by waters growing ever warmer thanks to fossil fuel emissions that continue to heat the atmosphere and the oceans, hit Puerto Rico, one glancingly, one full force.
     
    This is not new. When I was young, we would read about mysterious destructive storms hitting Caribbean islands. There were no satellites, no radar images, no measurements. No one knows how intense those storms were.

    While the warming in the last 35 years has been obvious, nearly the same level of warming was observed in the 35 years between 1915 and 1950. The earth has been warming and the oceans rising ever since the end of the previous glacial period 12,000 years ago.

    Until we are able to control atmospheric CO2 by some means or other, we will have to live with the effects. The science is definitely not settled.

    According to the official numbers CO2 emissions leveled out last year, but the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. There is a serious problem with the agreed-upon carbon accounting rules that conflate “renewable” and “carbon-free” energy.

    I can agree with what you’re saying here to some extent but the spread between emissions and actual measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere may be attributable to a more sinister reason.

    What were once sinks – like the oceans and the Amazon rain forest – have ceased to be sinks and are now sources. In which case humanity’s ability to influence matters has slipped out of its hands and runaway warming beckons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Sparkon says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Some people think the rising CO₂ is a result of the warming oceans outgassing CO₂, which they do in the same way your soda or beer loses its fizz, or carbonation, as it warms.

    The evidence is that increasing atmospheric CO₂ is an effect of global warming, and not its cause.
     
    Because of feedback, CO2 is both a cause and an effect of warming. Either one may precede the other. In the case of the sudden large transitions at the end of glacial periods reflected in the ice cores, the CO2 releases were triggered by variations in the earth's orbit called Milankovitch effects: the warming precedes the CO2 rise. However the CO2 rise is too large to be explained by Milankovitch warming alone and results in a sustained climate shift.

    the CO2 releases were triggered by variations in the earth’s orbit called Milankovitch effects:

    No, I don’t think so. Long term, slow acting Milankovitch Cycles cannot account for the intensity of the observed climatic variations reflected in the proxies, nor can the relatively modest effect of these MCs be the cause of more sudden, much shorter, and relatively recent climatic changes.


    Image: Connecticut College

    These MCs are theorized to be ~100,000 years, 41,000 years, even 21,000 years in length. The debate rages. Whatever the case, those MC periods are far too long to be responsible for the relatively much shorter but rather sharp climatic changes that have occurred several times within the historical era during the last 5,000 years: the so-called Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and Modern Warm Periods, which are separated in every case by a cooler period. One of those cool spells corresponds with the so-called Dark Ages that occurred between the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

    No force or effect whose shortest cycle is 21,000 years is likely to be responsible for multiple changes that occurred within 5,000 years.

    I would argue that some other significant factor must be playing a large role in Earth’s climate since neither Milankovitch Cycles, nor CO₂ could be a big player in the ups and downs of Earth’s climate over the past 5,000 years. Obviously, the most likely candidate is the Sun, and something affecting its output, either by internal action, external energy*, or perhaps filtering and blockage by passing dust, or other objects.

    (* Includes cosmic rays, electrical energy, magnetic forces, devious aliens, and manipulative deities)

    The record suggests that warm periods are good for civilization; cool periods, not so much. It should be noted however, that the Renaissance is fairly contemporaneous with the Little Ice Age, a fact which leads to interesting speculations. Nevertheless, for the common peasant of the day, deteriorating climatic conditions during the Little Ice Age may have been a matter of life and death. In the face of their troubles, many people turned to superstition, and blamed it all on witches.

    Not CO₂ mind you, but witches!

    Indeed, in 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued his Papal Bull Summis desiderantes affectibus describing the effects of witchcraft, and encouraging the persecution of witches. Thousands of innocent old hags and crones, and eventually many other people, were accused of witchcraft, condemned to death, and burned alive at the stake.

    “[m]any persons of both sexes, unmindful of their own salvation and straying from the Catholic Faith, have abandoned themselves to devils, incubi and succubi, and by their incantations, spells, conjurations, and other accursed charms and crafts, enormities and horrid offences, have slain infants yet in the mother’s womb, as also the offspring of cattle, have blasted the produce of the earth (…) they do not shrink from committing and perpetrating the foulest abominations and filthiest excesses to the deadly peril of their own souls, (…) the abominations and enormities in question remain unpunished not without open danger to the souls of many and peril of eternal damnation.”

    Edited for mercy, but if you read the whole Bull, it almost sounds like A complete list of things caused by global warming. which would make any witch proud.

    But we’ve come a long way baby, and today it’s all about the deadly trace gas CO₂, the molecule that roared, supposedly kept too many photons from flying off into space right away, and set in motion the changes that gave us expensive light bulbs, where once we had cheap ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tsar Nicholas

    The record suggests that warm periods are good for civilization; cool periods, not so much.
     
    A more profound conclusion to draw from the record is that there were wide swings in climate before the end of the last Ice Age. After the ice had retreated the Holocene began with an amazingly stable climate. This stability has allowed the emergence of agriculture and civilisation. Take away the ability to plant and harvest at regular intervals without your crops being destroyed in between and civilisation, possibly humanity itself, disappears.

    today it’s all about the deadly trace gas CO₂
     
    These are your words, not those of any climate scientist. Water, like CO2, is essential for life, but that doesn't mean you can't drown.
    , @Hu Mi Yu


    the CO2 releases were triggered by variations in the earth’s orbit called Milankovitch effects:

     

    No, I don’t think so. Long term, slow acting Milankovitch Cycles cannot account for the intensity of the observed climatic variations reflected in the proxies, nor can the relatively modest effect of these MCs be the cause of more sudden, much shorter, and relatively recent climatic changes.
     
    Nor did I say they did. Milankovitch effects (they are not cycles, because they are aperiodic) cause warming that triggers CO2 release from somewhere, most likely the oceans. This intensifies the warming, and sustains it after the Milankovitch warming has ended.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    Wikipedia has a decent summary of the topic, but they miss some things. Prior to about 500 thousand years ago, positive feedback caused a 41,000 year climate cycle with alternating glacial and interglacial conditions. The parameters of the feedback can be deduced from the ice core CO2 readings with the help of some basic calculus. Climate has a point of unstable equilibrium around 180 ppm. When atmospheric CO2 drops below this level, the climate system is unstable, and Milankovitch warming triggers a massive release of CO2 from the oceans. This results in a free-running astable multivibrator whose period is sensitive measure of CO2 releases.

    The period of the climate changes has been gradually lengthening since then. This indicates an increase in the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere. This is approximately the same time frame when humans began using fire. In fact it is possible to estimate the prehistoric human population based on these CO2 variations. Based on an assumed CO2 production of one ton per person, the human population 500,000 years ago is estimated to have been 500,000, while for 200,000 years ago the estimate is 40 million. Many argue that modern humans have only mastered fire in the last 12,000 years, but Chinese anthropologists have discovered sites with evidence of fire dating 1.5 million years ago.

    Looking at your graphs from Connecticut College, you have cut off the entire glacial period prior to 10,000 years ago. This is where the larger variation that is explained by my model is seen. There are, of course, other effects that modify climate that are not fully understood. These are amplified by the positive feedback. The equations show that the higher the CO2 level, the less positive feedback there is, and the more stable climate becomes. I believe this is in fact reflected in the graphs you linked.

    And as to the little ice age the Law Dome ice cores show the CO2 concentration peaking ate 284.1 in 1170 and then declining for a few centuries. It does not reach the same level again until 1820.

    Your comparison with the belief in witchcraft is just a distraction.

    I would like post my own material, but I need to remain anonymous. I have received threats of violence from climate activists. I don't think there is any way to post a JPG image here without linking it to a traceable website.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Sparkon

    the CO2 releases were triggered by variations in the earth’s orbit called Milankovitch effects:
     
    No, I don't think so. Long term, slow acting Milankovitch Cycles cannot account for the intensity of the observed climatic variations reflected in the proxies, nor can the relatively modest effect of these MCs be the cause of more sudden, much shorter, and relatively recent climatic changes.

    https://www.conncoll.edu/news/images/mag/winter2014/graph.jpg
    Image: Connecticut College

    These MCs are theorized to be ~100,000 years, 41,000 years, even 21,000 years in length. The debate rages. Whatever the case, those MC periods are far too long to be responsible for the relatively much shorter but rather sharp climatic changes that have occurred several times within the historical era during the last 5,000 years: the so-called Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and Modern Warm Periods, which are separated in every case by a cooler period. One of those cool spells corresponds with the so-called Dark Ages that occurred between the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

    No force or effect whose shortest cycle is 21,000 years is likely to be responsible for multiple changes that occurred within 5,000 years.

    I would argue that some other significant factor must be playing a large role in Earth's climate since neither Milankovitch Cycles, nor CO₂ could be a big player in the ups and downs of Earth's climate over the past 5,000 years. Obviously, the most likely candidate is the Sun, and something affecting its output, either by internal action, external energy*, or perhaps filtering and blockage by passing dust, or other objects.

    (* Includes cosmic rays, electrical energy, magnetic forces, devious aliens, and manipulative deities)

    The record suggests that warm periods are good for civilization; cool periods, not so much. It should be noted however, that the Renaissance is fairly contemporaneous with the Little Ice Age, a fact which leads to interesting speculations. Nevertheless, for the common peasant of the day, deteriorating climatic conditions during the Little Ice Age may have been a matter of life and death. In the face of their troubles, many people turned to superstition, and blamed it all on witches.

    Not CO₂ mind you, but witches!

    Indeed, in 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued his Papal Bull Summis desiderantes affectibus describing the effects of witchcraft, and encouraging the persecution of witches. Thousands of innocent old hags and crones, and eventually many other people, were accused of witchcraft, condemned to death, and burned alive at the stake.

    "[m]any persons of both sexes, unmindful of their own salvation and straying from the Catholic Faith, have abandoned themselves to devils, incubi and succubi, and by their incantations, spells, conjurations, and other accursed charms and crafts, enormities and horrid offences, have slain infants yet in the mother's womb, as also the offspring of cattle, have blasted the produce of the earth (...) they do not shrink from committing and perpetrating the foulest abominations and filthiest excesses to the deadly peril of their own souls, (...) the abominations and enormities in question remain unpunished not without open danger to the souls of many and peril of eternal damnation."
     
    Edited for mercy, but if you read the whole Bull, it almost sounds like A complete list of things caused by global warming. which would make any witch proud.

    But we've come a long way baby, and today it's all about the deadly trace gas CO₂, the molecule that roared, supposedly kept too many photons from flying off into space right away, and set in motion the changes that gave us expensive light bulbs, where once we had cheap ones.

    The record suggests that warm periods are good for civilization; cool periods, not so much.

    A more profound conclusion to draw from the record is that there were wide swings in climate before the end of the last Ice Age. After the ice had retreated the Holocene began with an amazingly stable climate. This stability has allowed the emergence of agriculture and civilisation. Take away the ability to plant and harvest at regular intervals without your crops being destroyed in between and civilisation, possibly humanity itself, disappears.

    today it’s all about the deadly trace gas CO₂

    These are your words, not those of any climate scientist. Water, like CO2, is essential for life, but that doesn’t mean you can’t drown.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Sparkon

    the CO2 releases were triggered by variations in the earth’s orbit called Milankovitch effects:
     
    No, I don't think so. Long term, slow acting Milankovitch Cycles cannot account for the intensity of the observed climatic variations reflected in the proxies, nor can the relatively modest effect of these MCs be the cause of more sudden, much shorter, and relatively recent climatic changes.

    https://www.conncoll.edu/news/images/mag/winter2014/graph.jpg
    Image: Connecticut College

    These MCs are theorized to be ~100,000 years, 41,000 years, even 21,000 years in length. The debate rages. Whatever the case, those MC periods are far too long to be responsible for the relatively much shorter but rather sharp climatic changes that have occurred several times within the historical era during the last 5,000 years: the so-called Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and Modern Warm Periods, which are separated in every case by a cooler period. One of those cool spells corresponds with the so-called Dark Ages that occurred between the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

    No force or effect whose shortest cycle is 21,000 years is likely to be responsible for multiple changes that occurred within 5,000 years.

    I would argue that some other significant factor must be playing a large role in Earth's climate since neither Milankovitch Cycles, nor CO₂ could be a big player in the ups and downs of Earth's climate over the past 5,000 years. Obviously, the most likely candidate is the Sun, and something affecting its output, either by internal action, external energy*, or perhaps filtering and blockage by passing dust, or other objects.

    (* Includes cosmic rays, electrical energy, magnetic forces, devious aliens, and manipulative deities)

    The record suggests that warm periods are good for civilization; cool periods, not so much. It should be noted however, that the Renaissance is fairly contemporaneous with the Little Ice Age, a fact which leads to interesting speculations. Nevertheless, for the common peasant of the day, deteriorating climatic conditions during the Little Ice Age may have been a matter of life and death. In the face of their troubles, many people turned to superstition, and blamed it all on witches.

    Not CO₂ mind you, but witches!

    Indeed, in 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued his Papal Bull Summis desiderantes affectibus describing the effects of witchcraft, and encouraging the persecution of witches. Thousands of innocent old hags and crones, and eventually many other people, were accused of witchcraft, condemned to death, and burned alive at the stake.

    "[m]any persons of both sexes, unmindful of their own salvation and straying from the Catholic Faith, have abandoned themselves to devils, incubi and succubi, and by their incantations, spells, conjurations, and other accursed charms and crafts, enormities and horrid offences, have slain infants yet in the mother's womb, as also the offspring of cattle, have blasted the produce of the earth (...) they do not shrink from committing and perpetrating the foulest abominations and filthiest excesses to the deadly peril of their own souls, (...) the abominations and enormities in question remain unpunished not without open danger to the souls of many and peril of eternal damnation."
     
    Edited for mercy, but if you read the whole Bull, it almost sounds like A complete list of things caused by global warming. which would make any witch proud.

    But we've come a long way baby, and today it's all about the deadly trace gas CO₂, the molecule that roared, supposedly kept too many photons from flying off into space right away, and set in motion the changes that gave us expensive light bulbs, where once we had cheap ones.

    the CO2 releases were triggered by variations in the earth’s orbit called Milankovitch effects:

    No, I don’t think so. Long term, slow acting Milankovitch Cycles cannot account for the intensity of the observed climatic variations reflected in the proxies, nor can the relatively modest effect of these MCs be the cause of more sudden, much shorter, and relatively recent climatic changes.

    Nor did I say they did. Milankovitch effects (they are not cycles, because they are aperiodic) cause warming that triggers CO2 release from somewhere, most likely the oceans. This intensifies the warming, and sustains it after the Milankovitch warming has ended.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    Wikipedia has a decent summary of the topic, but they miss some things. Prior to about 500 thousand years ago, positive feedback caused a 41,000 year climate cycle with alternating glacial and interglacial conditions. The parameters of the feedback can be deduced from the ice core CO2 readings with the help of some basic calculus. Climate has a point of unstable equilibrium around 180 ppm. When atmospheric CO2 drops below this level, the climate system is unstable, and Milankovitch warming triggers a massive release of CO2 from the oceans. This results in a free-running astable multivibrator whose period is sensitive measure of CO2 releases.

    The period of the climate changes has been gradually lengthening since then. This indicates an increase in the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere. This is approximately the same time frame when humans began using fire. In fact it is possible to estimate the prehistoric human population based on these CO2 variations. Based on an assumed CO2 production of one ton per person, the human population 500,000 years ago is estimated to have been 500,000, while for 200,000 years ago the estimate is 40 million. Many argue that modern humans have only mastered fire in the last 12,000 years, but Chinese anthropologists have discovered sites with evidence of fire dating 1.5 million years ago.

    Looking at your graphs from Connecticut College, you have cut off the entire glacial period prior to 10,000 years ago. This is where the larger variation that is explained by my model is seen. There are, of course, other effects that modify climate that are not fully understood. These are amplified by the positive feedback. The equations show that the higher the CO2 level, the less positive feedback there is, and the more stable climate becomes. I believe this is in fact reflected in the graphs you linked.

    And as to the little ice age the Law Dome ice cores show the CO2 concentration peaking ate 284.1 in 1170 and then declining for a few centuries. It does not reach the same level again until 1820.

    Your comparison with the belief in witchcraft is just a distraction.

    I would like post my own material, but I need to remain anonymous. I have received threats of violence from climate activists. I don’t think there is any way to post a JPG image here without linking it to a traceable website.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    No distraction, just an attempt to draw a parallel between witchcraft and CO₂ as examples of ignorant, panicky, and superstitious humans jumping to the wrong conclusion, and blaming an innocent scapegoat.

    I'm really interested more in the last 10-12,000 years not only because we have better data, but also because we know that humans were on the scene doing what they did in the several thousand years between the recession of the continental ice sheets, and the emergence of modern civilization reflected in the development of agriculture, rise of cities, and invention of writing

    I suggest that we have adequate detailed information over the last 10 millennia or so from the ice cores and other proxies--especially from human records within the historical era--to say that CO₂ is not playing any significant role in Earth's climate. Study of the graph from Connecticut College is sufficient to reach that conclusion, since anyone can see there is obviously no correlation at all over the last 10,000 years between the relatively stable levels of CO₂, one the one hand, and the relatively chaotic, noisy ups and downs of temperatures reflected in the proxies, on the other. Incidentally, I have never seen a graph where CO₂ leads temperature.

    You might be able to upload your image anonymously to
    http://tinypic.com/
    where you'd get a URL that you could link to from here.

    You would have to judge for yourself to determne if the work by its nature could be traced back to source by watermark, authors, or other characteristics.

    All of the badmouthing and threats I see are directed at so called "climate deniers," "climate change deniers," and "global warming deniers," but of course most skeptics, including yours truly, deny none of those things. Rather it is climate alarmists who mischaracterize the skeptical position with the "denier" label

    We are skeptical merely that CO₂ controls Earth's climate, or that it is a pollutant, or that a little extra warmth is inherently bad, or that we should continue to subsidize so-called renewable or sustainable energy sources that in fact increase energy expenses for everyone, while adding to the instability of the electrical grid, or that we should continue to throw money at something which may not even be a problem, and which we probably cannot affect one way or the other, in any case.

    Finally, I think carbon sequestration is a nutty, but very expensive, and potentially dangerous idea. Early results of JAXA's Ibuki CO₂-monitoring GOSAT reported by NHK seemed to show that industrialized nations of the N. hemisphere were net sinks of CO₂ during the summer months, a result which completely overturns the conventional narrative about the trace gas.

    We have a lot to learn.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Sparkon says:
    @Hu Mi Yu


    the CO2 releases were triggered by variations in the earth’s orbit called Milankovitch effects:

     

    No, I don’t think so. Long term, slow acting Milankovitch Cycles cannot account for the intensity of the observed climatic variations reflected in the proxies, nor can the relatively modest effect of these MCs be the cause of more sudden, much shorter, and relatively recent climatic changes.
     
    Nor did I say they did. Milankovitch effects (they are not cycles, because they are aperiodic) cause warming that triggers CO2 release from somewhere, most likely the oceans. This intensifies the warming, and sustains it after the Milankovitch warming has ended.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    Wikipedia has a decent summary of the topic, but they miss some things. Prior to about 500 thousand years ago, positive feedback caused a 41,000 year climate cycle with alternating glacial and interglacial conditions. The parameters of the feedback can be deduced from the ice core CO2 readings with the help of some basic calculus. Climate has a point of unstable equilibrium around 180 ppm. When atmospheric CO2 drops below this level, the climate system is unstable, and Milankovitch warming triggers a massive release of CO2 from the oceans. This results in a free-running astable multivibrator whose period is sensitive measure of CO2 releases.

    The period of the climate changes has been gradually lengthening since then. This indicates an increase in the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere. This is approximately the same time frame when humans began using fire. In fact it is possible to estimate the prehistoric human population based on these CO2 variations. Based on an assumed CO2 production of one ton per person, the human population 500,000 years ago is estimated to have been 500,000, while for 200,000 years ago the estimate is 40 million. Many argue that modern humans have only mastered fire in the last 12,000 years, but Chinese anthropologists have discovered sites with evidence of fire dating 1.5 million years ago.

    Looking at your graphs from Connecticut College, you have cut off the entire glacial period prior to 10,000 years ago. This is where the larger variation that is explained by my model is seen. There are, of course, other effects that modify climate that are not fully understood. These are amplified by the positive feedback. The equations show that the higher the CO2 level, the less positive feedback there is, and the more stable climate becomes. I believe this is in fact reflected in the graphs you linked.

    And as to the little ice age the Law Dome ice cores show the CO2 concentration peaking ate 284.1 in 1170 and then declining for a few centuries. It does not reach the same level again until 1820.

    Your comparison with the belief in witchcraft is just a distraction.

    I would like post my own material, but I need to remain anonymous. I have received threats of violence from climate activists. I don't think there is any way to post a JPG image here without linking it to a traceable website.

    No distraction, just an attempt to draw a parallel between witchcraft and CO₂ as examples of ignorant, panicky, and superstitious humans jumping to the wrong conclusion, and blaming an innocent scapegoat.

    I’m really interested more in the last 10-12,000 years not only because we have better data, but also because we know that humans were on the scene doing what they did in the several thousand years between the recession of the continental ice sheets, and the emergence of modern civilization reflected in the development of agriculture, rise of cities, and invention of writing

    I suggest that we have adequate detailed information over the last 10 millennia or so from the ice cores and other proxies–especially from human records within the historical era–to say that CO₂ is not playing any significant role in Earth’s climate. Study of the graph from Connecticut College is sufficient to reach that conclusion, since anyone can see there is obviously no correlation at all over the last 10,000 years between the relatively stable levels of CO₂, one the one hand, and the relatively chaotic, noisy ups and downs of temperatures reflected in the proxies, on the other. Incidentally, I have never seen a graph where CO₂ leads temperature.

    You might be able to upload your image anonymously to

    http://tinypic.com/

    where you’d get a URL that you could link to from here.

    You would have to judge for yourself to determne if the work by its nature could be traced back to source by watermark, authors, or other characteristics.

    All of the badmouthing and threats I see are directed at so called “climate deniers,” “climate change deniers,” and “global warming deniers,” but of course most skeptics, including yours truly, deny none of those things. Rather it is climate alarmists who mischaracterize the skeptical position with the “denier” label

    We are skeptical merely that CO₂ controls Earth’s climate, or that it is a pollutant, or that a little extra warmth is inherently bad, or that we should continue to subsidize so-called renewable or sustainable energy sources that in fact increase energy expenses for everyone, while adding to the instability of the electrical grid, or that we should continue to throw money at something which may not even be a problem, and which we probably cannot affect one way or the other, in any case.

    Finally, I think carbon sequestration is a nutty, but very expensive, and potentially dangerous idea. Early results of JAXA’s Ibuki CO₂-monitoring GOSAT reported by NHK seemed to show that industrialized nations of the N. hemisphere were net sinks of CO₂ during the summer months, a result which completely overturns the conventional narrative about the trace gas.

    We have a lot to learn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Alden says:

    I think its nice that Puerto Rico is part of the United States and when a hurricane does such destruction they can just get on a plane to the mainland. Puerto Ricans should be grateful for that. People in the states to which they come might not like it, but it’s good for the hurricane victims.

    I don’t believe a word of global warming because I don’t believe anything that is promulgated by the mass media, the government and the universities.

    The earth has been warming fro about 25,000 years now. It was much, much warmer in 700 AD to about 1100 AD that it is now. It was warm enough a thousand years ago for the Green landers to have a European style farming economy. Greenland is now mostly glaciers. It was a lot colder about 1500 AD to 1850 AD, the little ice age than it is now.

    Climates change. If global warming is real instead of a money maker for Al Gore and other rich liberals, it will be great for Russia, Canada, Alaska and other northern areas. Supposedly there are all sorts of minerals and other treasures in Siberia that cannot be mined now because of the perm frost and weather.

    And just think of all the money that could be saved in the northern tier of the United States if winter didn’t start till the middle of November and ended the first of March. Right now, Winter starts the middle of October and doesn’t end till the end of April.

    Think of all the money that would be saved on heat bills and snowplows.

    I just go by the dictum that anything told to us by the media, academia and government is a lie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Alden says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Mind you, even as the planet’s temperature rises, humanity continues to set records when it comes to dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
     
    According to the official numbers CO2 emissions leveled out last year, but the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. There is a serious problem with the agreed-upon carbon accounting rules that conflate "renewable" and "carbon-free" energy. Attempts to gloss this over by claiming "El Nino did it" won't explain the fact that 19th century CO2 levels began to rise twenty years before emissions. So called renewable energy sources such as wood chips, biofuels and cow dung also put CO2 into the atmosphere where it stays. The only way to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration is to actively sequester carbon. This is a completely different approach from that advocated by the alarmists who have instead come up with a Morgenthau plan for the whole world based on crackpot religion.

    those least responsible for the damage, whether living in Bangladesh, Central America, or Syria, are feeling its brunt first.
     
    Those living in poverty also generate CO2. Draft animals generate it, fireplaces generate it, even our own breathing generates it. On the average we were generating one ton of carbon emissions per person before the industrial revolution. "Fossil" fuels largely replaced other unmeasured carbon-based energy sources, so their influence is overstated in the models.

    those mega-storms, Irma and Maria, their power intensified by waters growing ever warmer thanks to fossil fuel emissions that continue to heat the atmosphere and the oceans, hit Puerto Rico, one glancingly, one full force.
     
    This is not new. When I was young, we would read about mysterious destructive storms hitting Caribbean islands. There were no satellites, no radar images, no measurements. No one knows how intense those storms were.

    While the warming in the last 35 years has been obvious, nearly the same level of warming was observed in the 35 years between 1915 and 1950. The earth has been warming and the oceans rising ever since the end of the previous glacial period 12,000 years ago.

    Until we are able to control atmospheric CO2 by some means or other, we will have to live with the effects. The science is definitely not settled.

    Years ago there was a big fuss about the ozone layer being destroyed over Indonesia. “Scientists” blamed it on the fact that Indonesia is a huge country and too many people use wood fires for cooking.

    Switching from draft animals to fossil burning vehicles in the cities was one of the major public health advances in the last 10,000 years. What’s worse, breathing CO2 or wading through manure every day?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Alden says:

    In the late 1970′s, just 40 years ago all the bien pensants and “scientists” predicted a coming Ice Age. In faCt several books about the coming Ice Age were published. Glaciers were on the covers of magazines like Time and Newsweek. All the high level magazines had articles about global cooling and the coming Ice Age. I think it was blamed on American nuclear tests and weapons.

    Things change, but if it comes from the media, academia and government one can be sure it’s all lies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Alden says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    climate change caused drought
     
    Paleontology suggests that we are headed for a warmer and wetter future. Drought is a natural phenomon that is unrelated to CO2. However it can be caused by human activity. For example the huge California central valley is shown on early Spanish maps as a huge "cienega o lago" (marsh or lake). Today it is a dry almost desert. This desiccation has resulted from huge flood control and water projects beginning with the American Canal around Sacramento. The loss of this warm shallow inland sea has resulted in a gradual drying of the region. The tule fogs that were a consistent feature of travel in the valley when I was young are gone today. There is an Indian museum in Sacramento that shows this drying out.

    And even the increased dumping of carbon dioxide is primarily due to population increases, not per-capita increases. Per capita energy consumption in the US peaked in 1970, it’s down quite a bit already – but as we are on track to double our 1970 population by 2040, and then quadruple it before the end of the century, so what?

     
    I agree, but I choose not to be defeatist about it. We know how to control atmospheric CO2. We do it in submarines and space missions. There is also the Bioshphere 2 project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2).

    We still have a century, and the technology is possible. We lack only the will. It is a difficult project, but overall the future of the earth has never looked brighter.

    I drive through the central valley several times a year on different freeways. If it’s a desert why do I see nothing but fields full of green crops, trees and bushes? Why does the central valley supply most of the fruits and vegetables fro the entire country if its nothing but a dry desert?

    I know its a lot due to irrigation projects, but millions of people live in that “dry desert” and they get their water from wells and lakes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower