The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersThe Audacious Epigone Blog
Humanity Was at War with Warming: Humanity Had Always Been at War with Warming!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Vox Day on an alleged attempt at retconning:

The failure of the long-predicted global warming to show up now has the AGW/CC scammers scrambling to claim that there never was an expectation of global cooling in the 1970s. Fortunately, climate skeptics are exploding the scammers’ latest falsehoods.

This historical revisionism is deeply insulting to the intelligence of at least two generations. Look, I was there at the time! They were absolutely going on about global cooling in much the same way they were banging on about global warming 20 years later.

Given my lack of familiarity, let alone expertise, with the relevant data on potential catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, I have little to say about the issue. Warmer temperatures offer humans a lot of obvious benefits–at least in the short term–that colder temperatures do not, so I’m more skeptical of the “catastrophic” part than the “warming” part.

What we do know is that some people were writing about global cooling in the seventies while no one was writing anything about global warming:



Extending the data through 2007, the last full year Ngrams has on record:

That “they were absolutely going on about global cooling in much the same way they” are focusing on global warming today appears to be, while directionally correct, wildly hyperbolic. By the mid-eighties, global warming received far more literary attention than global cooling ever had, and today global warming receives more than 100x what it did in the mid-eighties.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: 1984, CAGW, History, Literature, Science 
Hide 100 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Going on about global cooling wasn’t as profitable as going on about global warming.

    • Agree: TWS
    • Troll: Mr. Rational
  2. So far they have identified a correlation and developed a hypothesis of what it might mean going forward, but to be frank, they have drawn the wrong inferences. Most plants evolved in times of an atmosphere far richer in CO2, and we are testing our fates by trying to drive CO2 levels lower.

    If anything, we need more CO2 in the atmosphere to support the plants that deliver the oxygen and nutrition we need to sustain ourselves and the planet, and warming is not a bug, it is a feature.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  3. I was there too, and global cooling was absolutely the climate boogyman. Very smart important people were advocating such genius plans as coating the Earth’s poles with carbon black to warm things up.

    Did you adjust for mentions as a percent of publications (& their reach/distribution) and percent of “researchers”, academics, and officials? Because all of those numbers have exploded due to population growth (but mostly the advent of digital media, growth in government, and the subsidy of higher “education”).

  4. phil says:

    Virtually all the government-sponsored computer models exaggerate the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures. There has been an increase in temperatures on the order of 0.9 degrees Celsius since 1900. At most, half of that could be due to carbon dioxide emissions. The impact of a mild warming is mostly good.

    The real distortion is the predicted result at the level of the jet stream, not the surface of the earth. At the level of the jet stream, the models predict SEVEN times more warming than has actually take place. They thus claim a rush of tropical air upward, supposedly resulting in a greater number and more severe tropical storms. But it’s not the case.

    By now it’s almost all politics and media hype.

  5. Global warming is convenient enough because they can use it to fit it in a way that validates all of their agenda:

    – Don’t have (white) children but we need to open our borders for masses of third world migrants because of climate change, of course!

    – Don’t drive cars in red parts of the country, go move into cities which just so happen to be blue!

    – Meat causes global warming but let’s not investigate the soy-enriched lifestyle of the average urbanite millennial, who absolutely needs the latest smartphone and is on all kinds of drugs which I’m sure has no environmental impact at all!

    – Let’s blame first world countries so manufacturing can be decimated in order to move it to third world countries who don’t care about climate change and if they do, hand them a bribe to make them go away.

    It’s pretty transparent. I believe environmentalism is a good thing in the sense that we shouldn’t have businesses dump heavy metals and chemicals into a river but this modern day environmentalism has nothing to do with the environment and instead just another leftist cudgel to beat down the wrongthinkers.

  6. Global warming has become quite a money making scheme. If you’re a scientist and you want to study, for instance, the mating habits of owls, then you’re not going to get your money. However, if you title your study ‘the effect of global warming on the mating habits of owls’ then the money is yours.

  7. Here’s something:

    “The central fact is that, after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the Earth seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” —Newsweek: April 28, 1975

  8. dearieme says:

    Of course the threat of cold got less purchase then the threat of heat. Only the heat threat exploits ancestral memories of being threatened with hellfire.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  9. That “they were absolutely going on about global cooling in much the same way they” are focusing on global warming today appears to be, while directionally correct, wildly hyperbolic.

    Who is this “they” you are talking about here?

    Popular books and magazines are just that, popular.  They are written and printed to make money.  They are accordingly aimed to make people want to part with their earnings.

    This has damned near nothing to do with the truth.  It’s one step away from fiction.  The place to look for facts which can lead to the truth is the scientific literature.

    One of my huge complaints about Vox Day is that he misrepresents the “they” and the history in these things to conform to his prejudices.  (For someone who claims to be a student of history and bases much of his credibility thereon, that’s grossly dishonest.)  The actual history of the study of the atmosphere and climate, from Langley’s pioneering bolometry in the 1860’s to Svante Arrhenius’ seminal paper in 1896 to George Callender in the 1930’s and onward were all concerned about warming (or hoping for it, in the case of the Swede Arrhenius shivering away in Copenhagen’s winters).  Milankovitch cycles are slow and predictable, but human changes to the atmosphere are happening in a geological eyeblink.

    Google ngrams won’t find things like The Unchained Goddess, the 1958 Bell Telephone Hour show on the weather which touched on what we now call ACC (anthropogenic climate change).  So there you have a hit from 1958.  LBJ’s science advisory committee warned about warming back in 1965.  These are historic facts you simply can’t fit into conspiracy frameworks like “Al Gore dunnit” or “it’s a Chinese plot to hamstring and overtake the USA”, and frankly anyone who believes either of those or any of the related nonsense is stupid, a victim of disinformation, or both.

    Yes, I know too.  I was there and aware from the 70’s onward.  I remember the apocalyptic magazine covers with glaciers towering over suburbia like continent-wide bulldozer blades.  I even parted with some of my hard-won money to buy them.  None of this ever mentioned the accelerating pace of human GHG additions to the atmosphere which had been established scientific fact for decades and tracked almost daily since Keeling got funding for his CO2 measurements at Mauna Kea as part of the International Geophysical Year.  Why would they?  It would have taken away the one thing they were selling.

    Right now the zeitgeist on the right is that we’re having a cold period due to (again, scientifically measured and impeccable) low solar activity.  Does this mean we don’t have anthropogenic climate forcing in favor of warming?  Fuck no it doesn’t.  They can both be true simultaneously and what direction we go depends which one is stronger at the moment.  Different parts of the globe can even go opposite directions depending which influence dominates!  The poles are dominated by greenhouse effect which is the only thing holding in heat from warmer latitudes during the dark months.  The equator is much more affected by solar input.

    Frankly, if you’re trying to offset short-term variations in the solar output you sure don’t want to use CO2 (half-life something like 1000 years) or, heaven forbid, gases like CF4 and SF6 (half-life tens of thousands of years).  Methane has an initial GWP of over 100 and an effective lifespan on the order of 12 years.  If you over-correct with methane, you don’t have to wait long for it to oxidize and fix the problem (assuming you haven’t fired the “clathrate gun”, which is a whole ‘nuther can of worms).  You can’t do this with CO2; once emitted you’re stuck with it for longer than the lifespan of your civilization unless you actively work to remove it.

    If you are serious about understanding these things you need to dig into the scientific literature and read the papers.  I have gone looking for data and found some.  Yes, the strength of downwelling thermal IR at ground level is increasing.  Yes, the spectrum of upwelling thermal IR measured from on high (balloons and satellites) shows changes consistent with a stronger greenhouse effect.  Yes, the altitude of the tropopause (measured twice daily by radiosondes launched at dozens of stations worldwide) is increasing.  These are all consistent with the climate models going back to Arrhenius.  None are consistent with the conspiracy theories pushed by people who call climate scientists “warmists”.

    Right now there is talk about creating an entirely new climate model aimed at fixing many of the deficiencies in the current ones, especially atmosphere/ocean coupling.  Given the advances in both the science and computing power over the years this effort is probably overdue.  Unfortunately, the schedule I recall is about 5 years so we won’t have anything for a while.  I can’t know what the results will be, but I sure know which way to bet.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Audacious Epigone
  10. @The Alarmist

    Most plants evolved in times of an atmosphere far richer in CO2, and we are testing our fates by trying to drive CO2 levels lower.

    At the depth of the last glaciation, plant life on Earth was so luxurious that the Sahara was a forest.  That was at 180 ppm CO2.  We are now well over twice that.

    If anything, we need more CO2 in the atmosphere to support the plants that deliver the oxygen and nutrition we need to sustain ourselves and the planet

    No, we need less.  MUCH less.  All the half-truths about “CO2 is plant food” come from cherry-picked examples like greenhouse plants under near-ideal conditions of water and other nutrients.  Trying to generalize this to nutrient-poor conditions like the soils of tropical rainforests isn’t just wrong, it’s insane.  If CO2 is so great for plants, why is the Sahara still a desert?  Because you can’t grow anything without water, that’s why.  You can’t grow it without potash or phosphorus either.

    Leibig’s law of the minimum states that when you run out of the least-abundant of your necessities, adding more of the others buys you nothing.  However, some things require more or less of such necessities than others.  You find prickly pear cactus growing as far north as the islands in Puget Sound because they’re paradoxically quite dry.  It turns out that woody (weedy) vines generally require less of the chemical nutrients than our desired forest and crop species and can take more advantage of high CO2 than our sources of food, building material, paper, etc.  More CO2 means more vines at the expense of trees.

    I am living this personally.  I have a small wood on my property and one consequence of high CO2 is that I’m always chopping back vines which would otherwise climb, shade out and kill my trees.  I missed one and had the tree die and fall in my yard last year.  The vine that strangled it was as thick as a child’s wrist.

    The upshot of all of this is that we tamper with our atmosphere at the risk of our civilization and many, many species including our own.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  11. @Mr. Random Commentuer

    global cooling was absolutely the climate boogyman. Very smart important people were advocating such genius plans as coating the Earth’s poles with carbon black to warm things up.

    Turns out that’s happening by accident; Greenland is losing huge amounts of ice because soot and other particulate deposits turn white reflectors into gray absorbers.  Then the melt water runs down crevasses and transfers the heat straight to the bottom of the ice sheet.

    Did you adjust for mentions as a percent of publications (& their reach/distribution) and percent of “researchers”, academics, and officials?

    To get a real understanding of the science you have to throw out all of the popular literature which is what ngrams measure (looking at the wrong “they” when trying to figure out “what they say”).  Most journalists are not just scientifically illiterate, they don’t even have basic numeracy.  The few who are competent in these areas are rare treasures but lose out to the ideologues.

    • Agree: szopen
    • Replies: @JVC
  12. songbird says:

    When solar eclipses are explained, global warming is probably the natural fear of sun worshipers.

  13. JVC says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Mr. rational makes a lot of claims in his several replies straight from the warmist book. I too was there–from the early 60’s onward, and with a degree in geology, I can assure you that there is nothing happening now that has not happened before.

    His half life claims for several gasses are far from factual–Carbon Dioxide is more on the order of 12 years as it is constantly being recycled by the earth itself –sequestered in vegetation, absorbed by a warming ocean, (and emitted by a cooling one) spewed out by volcanoes, termite colonies (have you read about the one in south america that covers square miles??) and most every life process happening in the world today. Every breath you take and exhale. 180 ppm was so close to the extinction of life level ~150ppm that we are lucky to have survived the last glacial advance. The biosphere was magnificent with CO2 levels at 10 times today’s levels, and the earth is still viable millions of years later in spite of all the proclaimed tipping points if we don’t stop using fossil fuels. The only thing that the increased levels of CO2 is an observed greening of the planet–Yes it is plant food Mr. Rational. You mention the forested Sahara, but neglect the spruce forest fossils from well north of the current tundra line that were there during the last inter-glacial. This old world swings both ways

    The 60’s – 70’s cooling claims were also blamed on the use of fossil fuels–except that the particulate emissions blamed for potentially sending us into another glacial advance were relatively easy to clean up. So CO2 had to become a pollutant. Odd that the smart guys at Harvard now want to load the atmosphere with those same particulates to stop the warming for lots of money. Would cost a lot less to simple remove the stack scrubbers and go back in time.

    Arrhenius’s experiments in a closed system are one thing, CO2 in the atmosphere is another. The climate is a nonlinear, chaotic system with so many different, and constantly changing inputs that no one thing can be pointed to as THE CONTROL KNOB like some would like you to believe. Despite what some claim, the sign and amount of feed back a doubling of CO2 causes is not yet known—the icpp’s claim of 3 degrees C is most likely way out of line.

    yes, there has been a bit of warming from the established base line that just happens to correspond to the end of the little ice age—the coldest the earth had been in the past 10,000 years. The warming has generally been higher night time lows, and slightly elevated winter highs–nothiing to be afraid of. I’m sitting here today in North Central Texas (temps in the 30’s and NW wind howling) wishing the world would hurry and warm up a bit more. Unfortunately, I suspect that the natural cycles are taking us back the other way.

  14. @A Random Dude

    Actual environmental stewardship conflicts with globalism and migration, so the Left has tiptoed away from it. Now, the environmentalists are the GOP voters in Ducks and Trout Unlimited and the Lefties get on jets to take “eco-friendly” vacations in Costa Rica.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  15. Yup, the coming ice age was my dominant childhood memory. Here’s Mr. Spock being less than, uh, logical.

  16. szopen says:

    The thing is you have to separate what’s written in the popular press (which is usually wrong, sometimes ridiculously so) from what’s in science. In science there was never consensus about “global cooling”. Until som e1960 or 70s there were two competing sets of theories. I think that by the end of 1970 the arguments for global warming won the discussion.

    Just think how popular press is describing the HBD positions (including how they describe VD’s position) and then think why you think they describe the scientific positions any better.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  17. @Mr. Rational

    Meh! Earth has been in a Greenhouse state for 80% of the past 500 million years, and it is currently in an interglacial warming period in a 20% icehouse state. For all we know, orbital wobble or an increase of solar radiation output is returning the Earth to its more customary state, and greenhouse gasses are more like an indicator of that rather than a primary cause of the warming (though there is some feedback loop action in there).

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Mr. Rational
  18. szopen says:
    @The Alarmist

    You could’ve also link a graph showing the solar output over the same period. I hope you know in the past it was significantly lower – or maybe you are saying that astrophycics is part of the conspiracy ?

    (and, I wonder how to explain high temperatures in the past with the cooler sun, huh?)

  19. @szopen

    Do you have data on how much lower solar output was over the last 500M years?

    • Replies: @szopen
  20. @JVC

    Yeah, I think we should simply label Mr Rational as SUL (Straight Up Liar.)

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
  21. szopen says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    Google tells me it was about ~4% cooler in “late ordovician”.

    For example, look at the fig 1 here:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011RG000375

  22. @szopen

    You should do a little more digging. The Faint Young Sun paradox is a hypothesis based on empirical observation of other stars in various life stages, but it is not clear what forces were at play in earlier Sun/Earth history. The Sun may indeed have had lower luminosity in its younger days, but one speculation is that it had a greater starting mass and lost a portion of that larger starting mass over time so that solar output was much more consistent over time than the hypothesis might suggest in absence of observations of star-mass loss. Mars is cited as a candidate for having been a wetter planet, ostensibly suggesting the earlier Sun might have been “warmer.”

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Mr. Rational
  23. szopen says:
    @The Alarmist

    The article I’ve linked above (the one you commented on) discusses also the “bigger mass” hypothesis (in section 4) and judges it as an unlikely explanation of the paradox:

    there are limits to the mass of the early Sun. A weak upper limit can be derived from the fact that at higher solar luminosities Earth would have run into a runaway greenhouse effect (see Goldblatt and Watson [2012] for a recent review). If the solar luminosity were beyond a certain threshold, the increased evaporation of water would result in accelerating warming. Eventually, all ocean water would be evaporated and lost to space by photodissociation and hydrodynamic escape, a process that is believed to be responsible for the lack of water in the atmosphere of Venus [Ingersoll, 1969; Rasool and de Bergh, 1970].

    [50] It has been estimated that a 10% increase in solar flux could have led to rapid loss of water from the early Earth [Kasting, 1988]. Taking into account the mass‐luminosity relation in equation (4), the change in Earth’s semi‐major axis due to solar mass change from equation (5) and the secular evolution of solar luminosity following equation (1), this corresponds to a 7% increase in solar mass [Whitmire et al., 1995], so high mass loss could make the Archean unsuitable for life.

    it has been suggested [Guzik and Cox, 1995] that an extended mass loss of the early Sun can be ruled out using helioseismology, the study of the Sun’s interior structure using resonant oscillations [Deubner and Gough, 1984]. Solving the faint young Sun problem would require that the Sun remained at least a few percent more massive than today over 1 or 2 billion years, while helioseismology limits the enhanced mass loss to the first 0.2 Gyr of the Sun’s life

    “Much more stringent limits to a more massive young Sun can be inferred from observations of mass loss in young stars similar to the Sun [Wood, 2004; Wood et al., 2005]. Observations of other cool stars show that they lose most of their mass during the first 0.1 Gyr [Minton and Malhotra, 2007]. Most importantly, the observed solar analogs exhibit considerably lower cumulative mass‐loss rates than required to offset the low luminosity of the early Sun”

    Anyways, here you have hypothesis stating that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane may contribute to climate changes. This hypothesis MAY solve the paradox of cooler sun and high temperatures in the past, the larger-than-expected changes in temperature during the ice age AND current warming. Instead you would want to invent separate hypothesis to explain each of those events.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  24. This explains why “Soylent Green” (1973) has suddenly appeared at the top of my Netflix recommendations. The apocalyptic catastrophe that drove that movie was a runaway “greenhouse effect”, making everything too warm.

    See! You knuckle-draggers! We told you we were battling Global Warming back in the 70’s!!!

    They found their one example, proving everything they say is true.

  25. notanon says:

    i remember global cooling being a thing if you were interested in popular science type TV and publications but it wasn’t relentlessly pushed in the schools/media like global warming.

    the global warming scam is about de-industrializing the West imo – a stealth Morgenthau plan to defang the white debils/

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

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  26. @JVC

    Mr. rational makes a lot of claims in his several replies straight from the warmist book.

    And there you go, leading with the label.

    I do a lot of my own mathematical analysis.  I can’t run anything like a climate model but I check numbers all the time.  The climate scientists talk in terms which I have confirmed with my own work more than once; the nay-sayers do not.

    I too was there–from the early 60′s onward, and with a degree in geology

    Tell me, did your coursework include any thermodynamics?  How about control system theory, including calculus of complex variables (required to analyze linear feedback systems and a starting point for non-linear systems)?  Mine did.  I’ve found them very useful for understanding lots of these things; they have applications far beyond what the syllabus designers intended.

    I can assure you that there is nothing happening now that has not happened before.

    True.  The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum definitely happened.  We really don’t want to cause another one.  It may have been set off by a runaway decomposition of methane clathrates, the aforementioned “clathrate gun”.

    His half life claims for several gasses are far from factual–Carbon Dioxide is more on the order of 12 years as it is constantly being recycled by the earth itself

    A half-truth is a whole lie, JVC.  What matters is the net additions or removals.  It doesn’t matter if you’re dumping water into a leaky bucket, it doesn’t stay there.  Kind of like these idiots.

    https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=s4QKP_1543442008

    If CO2 had a real atmospheric half-life of 12 years, that’s a factor of 1/e in just over 17 years or about 5.6% per year removed.  5.6% of 400 ppm is 22.4 ppm per year.  Here’s the full Keeling curve:

    Do you see ANYTHING like 22 ppm of CO2 disappearing every year?  You do not; your claim is pure lying by misdirection.  What you are talking about is temporary uptake in annual plants and leaves of deciduous trees which return to the atmosphere over the winter, and exchanges with the oceans which go in both directions.  Actually removing CO2 permanently requires weathering of rocks to turn CO2 into carbonates.  That is a very slow process.

    What I see is an annual 4-5 ppm sawtooth curve superimposed on a roughly 3 ppm annual increase.  We are definitely doing something that is utterly without precedent in the history of this planet.

    180 ppm was so close to the extinction of life level ~150ppm that we are lucky to have survived the last glacial advance.

    Extinction level?  Don’t you realize that 4-carbon plants (grasses like maize) can grow at much lower CO2 levels than 3-carbon plants?  I don’t notice any shortage of 3-carbon species like trees.

    If you’re so sure we’re not going to mess up the globe by dumping millions of years worth of long-sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere in a couple of centuries, why are you going all paranoid over a wholly natural minimum… that ol’ Planet Earth has no doubt seen plenty of times before yet it’s inexplicably still full of plant life?

    Ask yourself, WHERE did all that CO2 disappear to in the last glacial?  Probably into things like the Great Sahara forest (of 3-carbon plants).  So many trees they were going to kill themselves… oh, wait.

    The biosphere was magnificent with CO2 levels at 10 times today’s levels

    That was also with a solar constant 3-5% LOWER than today’s levels.  The Sun is a main-sequence star and brightens at about 1% every 100 million years.  Cambrian-level CO2 would produce a radically different planet now than it did then.

    The only thing that the increased levels of CO2 is an observed greening of the planet–Yes it is plant food Mr. Rational. You mention the forested Sahara, but neglect the spruce forest fossils from well north of the current tundra line that were there during the last inter-glacial.

    Yet the climate did that without CO2 ever exceeding about 300 ppm, if we can trust the ice-core data.  So how is it that you can be CERTAIN that 400+ ppm is not grossly overdoing it and begging for trouble?

    This isn’t a video game.  We don’t get to restart from a save point if we die.  We have no backup-Earth.  (It’s definitely time to start making off-planet backups of things, building up to whole ecosystems.)

    The 60′s – 70′s cooling claims were also blamed on the use of fossil fuels–except that the particulate emissions blamed for potentially sending us into another glacial advance were relatively easy to clean up.

    So you’re saying the cooling effects of aerosols are REAL?  (You better; the consequences of large volcanic eruptions are not just qualitatively undeniable but quantitatively proven.)

    Something you obviously haven’t studied is “optical depth”.  You might know that there is this thing called the tropopause.  I’m sure you don’t understand WHY there is a tropopause.  The tropopause is where the atmosphere is sufficiently attenuated that what remains above is “optically thin” in the thermal wavelengths and what’s below can radiate more or less freely to space.  The air above this point receives energy from below as thermal IR and from above as near-IR through UV, which it spreads around but can’t re-radiate well due to the paucity of molecules with emission bands at the appropriate energies.  This is why the temperature increases with altitude above the tropopause, and why this zone is called the “stratosphere”:  it is stratified, stabilized by permanent temperature inversion.

    If you’d ever bother to look at thermal spectra of the atmosphere, the escaping IR seen from high altitude more or less follows a blackbody curve at around 250 K.  The downwelling IR measured at the ground follows a much hotter blackbody curve, with some notches.  Only the rare IR photon gets directly through; most get absorbed some relatively short distance along (which increases as the air thins and the IR-active gas molecules are spread further apart), converted into heat by collision with other molecules, and the energy traded back in another collision and re-radiated in some random direction.

    If you’ve ever been an aviator, you know about the term “lapse rate”.  This is the rate at which temperature typically declines in the atmosphere.  In English units, it’s about 3.5°F per 1000 feet.  It turns out that this is considerably less than the rate at which air becomes thermally unstable; if you lift up a parcel of air by 1000 feet, its expansion cools it by more like 5.4°F so it tends to stay where it is.  But what phenomenon produces the lapse rate?  It’s the insulating properties of the greenhouse gases in the troposphere, which stop and re-radiate IR photons.  There are precious few coming back from the stratosphere and higher, so most of that traffic is one-way outward.  As you go lower, each layer has to receive as much extra from below as it loses to the layer above to maintain the same temperature.  This means the temperature slowly goes up.  If the GHG concentration ever rose to the point where IR transmission could not move heat fast enough to keep the lapse rate down to 5.4°F/1000 feet, the air would become unstable and move heat by convection.

    I’m very sure we don’t want the atmosphere in general to get that full of GHGs.  I am no weather modeller but I would not be surprised if this is a significant effect in wet tropical air.

    Would cost a lot less to simple remove the stack scrubbers and go back in time.

    It would cost you the edibility of almost every fish in every lake and stream due to the mercury spewed out the stacks.  It’s bad enough with only the top predators being too toxic to eat.

    Arrhenius’s experiments in a closed system are one thing, CO2 in the atmosphere is another.

    CO2 does not magically change its properties when you mix it with oxy-nitrogen.

    The climate is a nonlinear, chaotic system with so many different, and constantly changing inputs that no one thing can be pointed to as THE CONTROL KNOB like some would like you to believe.

    Chaotic systems are characterized by “chaotic attractors”, a general path through a series of states which they travel semi-repeatably.  The problem is that if you change the underlying conditions enough they can snap to a NEW attractor which does not reproduce the old set of states.

    What this means for weather/climate is that the new set of states can easily become unlivable for the ecosystems which are currently there.  Do you really want to have the climate zone for southern longleaf pine go from W. Virginia up to somewhere north of Montreal?  Do you want practically EVERY tree in those zones to die, while frantically trying to plant things which can grow in the now-prevailing conditions?  Can you imagine the catastrophic losses, not to mention forest fires which make this year’s burns in California look like a grilling mishap?

    I’m sitting here today in North Central Texas (temps in the 30′s and NW wind howling) wishing the world would hurry and warm up a bit more.

    What you are “enjoying” is the fruits of the GHG-induced weaking of the polar vortex, which used to confine polar air to the region around the pole.  In its weakened state the west-east flow tends to come north around California and then south again on the other side of the Rockies.  When it goes north it brings unseasonably warm temperatures to BC and Alaska, and when it comes south it drags polar air with it.  Oh, you might also want to ask your neighbors if they want more and deeper droughts.

    Something I found out in my time in Texas is that you still haven’t learned what insulation is for.  This is why your cold tap often yields water at blood temperature in summertime.  Another 3 feet of earth over your water mains wouldn’t cost much and would stop the beating sun from getting down to them.

  27. @notanon

    the global warming scam is about de-industrializing the West imo

    You have the 0.1%’s goals right but the details wrong.  This should surprise no one who understands just how much disinformation has been worked into the conflicting political camps.

    Anthropogenic climate change (it’s more than just “warming”) is real.  It’s been measured.  It’s happening.  It’s the policy prescriptions which are bogus.  What’s the absolute first thing we should do to truly solve this problem?  Obviously, it’s to convert away from GHG-emitting systems, including but not limited to burning fossil fuels (eliminating CFC refrigerants is a significant factor too).  You’d also keep people from moving to first-world countries where their energy consumption and GHG emissions are higher.

    What’s our best and most scalable source of non-fossil energy?  Uranium!  But are there any significant “Green” organizations calling for expansion of nuclear energy?  Well, there used to be, but even Sierra “Atoms Not Dams” Club was bought off by… fossil fuel interests and turned into an anti-nuclear group.

    Instead, the fake environmentalist policies push massive wealth transfer to the turd world and bringing the turd-world hordes to our countries.  This massively increases their energy consumption and GHG emissions.  This is anti-environment, which is how you know that the policy prescription is bogus.  But if you combined it with fossil-fuel restrictions in the first world applying to all, it would promote immiseration of Whites and White genocide… definitely part of their program.  Given their avowed goals, that’s certainly the intent of the policy.  Their rabid hatred of White people is all the confirmation you need.

    We did just have a very half-hearted turnaround on the nuclear issue by the UCS, but they put so many caveats about “dangerous” nuclear power (which hasn’t killed a single member of the general public in the USA in its entire history) in their report it has to be considered ass-covering and not a real policy shift.

    Anyway, the elite 0.1% do want the Earth deindustrialized and depopulated.  They like the idea of agricultural feudalism with their hunting estates.  Keeping humanity away from the nuclear energy which can cleanly power the industry for billions while clamping down on fossil fuels in the name of the climate is exactly the way to go about that.

    Yes, this analysis goes cross-wise to everything you thought you believed.  But it’s consistent with the actual facts, which is why it’s much closer to the truth than the pablum you’ve been fed.

    • Replies: @szopen
  28. @The Alarmist

    Earth has been in a Greenhouse state for 80% of the past 500 million years

    Earth has almost certainly been in a greenhouse state since it first had an atmosphere.  4 billion YA the Sun was something like 40% dimmer than today.  Earth would have been an iceball had it not been for strong volcanic activity of a young planet pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.  Once it thawed, it probably stayed on the edge of re-glaciation due to rainfall eroding and weathering rock which re-captured CO2 as solid carbonates.  In the iceball state it had little weathering so it would build up CO2 to thaw again.

    Iceball-Earth might have had something to do with the origin of life.  Precursors of biochemicals can get lost in water, but if they freeze they wind up at the boundaries of ice crystals.  This is an ideal place to react and recombine in new ways.  Only one of them has to be a successful self-replicator to get the whole process going.

  29. @szopen

    (and, I wonder how to explain high temperatures in the past with the cooler sun, huh?)

    If the temperature at the equator has to be roughly constant to balance volcanic CO2 emissions with CO2 removal by erosion, the poles would be much warmer in the earlier days due to the much higher GHG levels holding warmth in even during the dark winters.  As the Sun heats up the CO2 levels fall and the poles paradoxically get colder (until the terminal shift to a runaway greenhouse a la Venus).

  30. @The Alarmist

    The Sun may indeed have had lower luminosity in its younger days, but one speculation is that it had a greater starting mass and lost a portion of that larger starting mass over time

    If that was true we’d observe much stronger stellar winds from young G-class main sequence stars.  We don’t.

  31. I’m not going to pretend to be an internet scientist that understands the data all I know is that the proposed solutions for climate change just happen to correspond with the neoliberal agenda:

    Fewer white children

    A carbon tax on all western countries with the proceeds going to third world dictators and politically connected billionaires

    Open borders allowing millions of third worlders to invade white countries to escape the supposed effects of climate change.

    If these are the only solutions I’d rather just let the world burn.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  32. i was also around for the 70s and it was colder. but what’s interesting, is that nobody gave a shit. you were expected to show up for school when it was -5 out, and not one person anywhere thought it was too cold to go to school that day or too cold wait for the bus.

    today in some states they give the kids a school delay if it approaches 0, and sometimes they just cancel school completely for COLD WEATHER if it’s colder than that. not for snow, just for COLD. what in the actual?

    how about this: during that 2012 hurricane that hit the coast of new york, they gave kids the day off from some schools in…western pennsylvania. because the hurricane might come inland. or something. WTF.

    anyway, in the 70s, politicians certainly weren’t trying to make money off it, one way the other.

  33. Rich says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Because of the politicization of the issue, it’s now become impossible to do serious climate research. Anyone who doesn’t go along with the “Faith” is shunned and driven out of academia. We’ve entered a Dark Age of research, at least in the US and Western Europe, so until these regions stop with the religious fervor in favor of high taxes and stronger government control, any statistics coming out of these areas has to be looked at skeptically.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  34. @Mr. Random Commentuer

    No, it’s simply a measure of the percentages of books published per year that mention each of the phrases.

  35. @dearieme

    Dante’s version of Hell is scarier to me than the fire and brimstone version. Heat is obnoxious but cold is deadly!

    • Replies: @TheJester
  36. vok3 says:

    I was there at the time too. Global warming was a major, major theme being pushed in elementary schools by the mid-80s – and I don’t mean in specific teacher attitudes, but in classroom materials like the Weekly Reader that would tend to get spread around all over the place. “After the Warming” was the great pseudo-documentary that came out in ’89 (all my school’s science teachers showed it); Balance of the Planet was the game that came out in ’90 – these were not out of the blue, they were building on at least a decade of ideological and theoretical work, with absolutely no mention of cooling even as a possibility. He’s not that much older than me, so claiming that cooling was being pushed just as hard just a few years earlier … just isn’t true. There may well have been a steady low-level current of speculation about the possibility in scientific journals and occasional newspaper columns, but it didn’t remotely compare to how much the CO2 theory got pushed when it came along.

    “wildly hyperbolic” is typical Vox Day, and it isn’t an accident. Nor is the fact that, if he needs to, he can argue that he didn’t actually say what you’re characterizing him as saying. Like his current series of posts about the moon landing being hoaxed. It’s very carefully written. Most readers will scan it and conclude “Vox Day thinks it’s likely the moon landing was a hoax”, while the wording is such that he can resort to nitpicky details to claim he said no such thing. If one repeatedly writes things such that readers conclude “the author is arguing XYZ” while the author insists “I said no such thing”, either the author is very bad at communicating, or he is good at communicating but systematically dishonest.

    Most notably, he doesn’t respond to the very valid point that the Russians would have had every motivation in the world to debunk the landing if it was a hoax (this was less than a decade after Gary Powers!), certainly had the technical ability to detect it, as did at least half a dozen other nations and who knows how many university observatories, all with their own motives to speak up if they had seen anything questionable going on. The unavoidable consequence is that any conspiracy to produce a hoax would have been so big it can hardly be called a conspiracy anymore; it would have been common knowledge. Therefore the one thing that can be said about the moon landing is that a hoax is the least likely of all possible options. But that gets away from his being able to nitpick the details of what words he did or did not use, and distract his audience from the simple and evident overall meaning, and (deniably) leading them into believing things that just aren’t so.

    Why he thinks it necessary to lead his audience into these realms of improbability is best left as an exercise in speculation.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  37. @Mr. Rational

    Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. The issue isn’t anywhere close to the top of my priority list but it’s nice to have a great secondary source to follow (you) on it.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  38. For decades have I believed we should develop cleaner replacements for fossil fuels for other reasons aside from global warming:
    A) Where the oil money goes.
    B) Our trade deficit.
    C) Conventional pollutants from burning fossil fuels.

    Also, I think fossil fuels replacements will eventually be cheaper than fossil fuels for many (though perhaps not all) purposes once learning curves go along far enough. Given the huge drops in solar, wind, and battery costs in the last 10 years it seems reasonable to expect more drops.

    As for global warming: seems reasonable to expect it.

    Currently, according to a recent NY Times article, Chinese companies are building coal electric power plants in 17 other countries. The global tragedy of the commons continues.

  39. @szopen

    Because it is just as likely that increased greenhouse gasses are for the most part caused by warming.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Mr. Rational
  40. Krollchem says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Thanks for your deep analysis.

    One minor quibble of both sides of the climate change debate is that the focus is mostly on one or two factors. For global warning it is CO2 and for global cooling the issue is weakening of the solar magnetic field leading to more cosmic rays forcing more cloud nucleation leading to more albedo.

    There are literally hundreds of other minor factor that contribute to climate change. I currently expect some global warming but it would enhanced due to methane, which while having a shorter residence time, is a greater greenhouse gas.

    Overshadowing the climate change debate is the collapse of civilization from resource depletion and environmental degradation. For the other readers here are a few books to read:

    Limits to Growth – the thirty year update
    Pathfinding our Destiny – preventing the final fall of our democratic republic
    Dark Age America – Climate change, culture collapse and the hard future ahead.
    Doughnut Economics

    I expect the collapse of society will occur prior to the major effects of global warming. The wild card in the US and Israeli Zionists goal for global conquest. They will eventually create a conventional war with Russia, China and their allies in which the US would lose badly and then resort to nuclear war:
    The U.S. Government’s Plan Is to Conquer Russia by a Surprise Invasion
    http://thesaker.is/the-u-s-governments-plan-is-to-conquer-russia-by-a-surprise-invasion/

    Unfortunately, Nuclear Winter would be much worse than even Dr. Toon predicts due to massive vaporization of sulfur from sheetrock contained in vaporized houses as well as oxides of nitrogen that would wipe out the ozone layer.

    I hope this information is of some use. To bad we could not have an in depth discussion…

    Watching the Revolution in France closely for signs of the revolt of the serfs against the elite.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  41. szopen says:
    @The Alarmist

    They are, and they then accelerate warming. After all, that’;s part of the theory and one of the possible explanations why changes in temperature during the ice ages were larger than expected when taking into account other factors: that initial warming is caused by something else, which causes chagnes in concentration in greenhouse gases (amongst other things, there is also albedo changes etc), which then causes chagnes in temperature (smaller) which causes changes in concentration of greenhouse gases (smaller) which causes changes in temperature (much smaller than previously) which then… etc until new balance point is reached.

    If you, however, deny any role for the greenhouse gases you have a lot of explaining to do (including why we have so high temperatures right now, and I do not mean global warming). If you do not deny greenhouse gases, but postulate that they stop to matter after some concentrations is reached (in polish it’s “problem nasycenia pasma”, I forget what it is in English, band saturation problem?), then you are starting to be involved in serious argument – but at this point I must admit I started to not understanding the arguments frmo both sides. Since, however, until this point after spending much time on the arguments pro-AGW side i’ve decided pro-AGW side always had better arguments, while anti-AGW has wrong, I assume at this point the trend will be the same.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  42. szopen says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Personally I’m big fan for geoengineering. Or of, instead of making caps on CO2 emissions, making prizes for companies capturing CO2. Some ideas are really neat and quite simple, even if their scale would be too small for each slution in isolation.

    I’m really astounded wy my fellow rightwingers are so blind. Usually it’s conservatives who care about consequences of our actions and leftwingers who think “who cares about future”. Usually it’s conservatives who are cautious and are not ready to risk the society future. And yet here, even if the risk if small, somehow conservatives think there is no reason to make any kind of insurance.

    Not to mention that the risk will be affecting mostly the middle and lower classes. IIRC even in the worst scenario Earth woudl be still habitable around the poles – and I guess those territories will be assigned mostly to the descendants of modern elites. Meaning children of Zuckerbergs and Gates, not ours.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  43. LondonBob says:

    The scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit seems to have been memory holed.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  44. @Futurethirdworlder

    If these are the only solutions I’d rather just let the world burn.

    It would be a fairly simple (if not easy) solution to California’s GHG targets to remove all the Mexicans and other central/south Americans back to their home countries, followed by serious restrictions on the native criminal class to keep them from re-establishing urban ghettoes.  The energy consumption of those removed would drop steeply (and occur outside California) and making the inner ring housing habitable by the working class again would slash commutes and the associated fuel consumption.

    This is not to mention the huge QOL improvement from eliminating so much time wasted in traffic.

    • Replies: @Futurethirdworlder
  45. @Rich

    it’s now become impossible to do serious climate research.

    On the contrary, the team which comes up with a model which does a substantially better job of retrodiction would get lots of acclaim and grant money.  They could let others note that said model produces politically-inconvenient PREdictions.  But first you have to have that model.

    Plotting errors in temperature records is another relatively non-controversial thing.  The problem I have is that the denialist camp claims that things like the HADCRUT dataset have been contaminated by fraud, and there’s no way for a lone outsider like me to check this one way or the other.  Given that the denialists started with PR and lobbying, their late entry into the practice of science makes me suspect that they’re the frauds.

    Time will tell, of course.  The problem is that we don’t HAVE time.

  46. @Audacious Epigone

    You’re most welcome to be the beneficiary of my having too much time on my hands.

  47. @The Alarmist

    What could have caused the warming, though?  At this point in the Milankovitch cycle we should be in a cooling trend.  Even if CO2 is substantially driven by feedback effects in the natural cycle, forcing a signal into the feedback pathway is just another way to drive the system output.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @Tacman
  48. @Krollchem

    The U.S. Government’s Plan Is to Conquer Russia by a Surprise Invasion

    That’s insane.  If neither Napoleon nor Hitler could manage that starting from practically next door, there’s no way to do it from another continent even if we had a competent, up-to-date military—which we demonstrably do not.

    This looks like a red herring.  They’ve got to be using it to try to push something else out of sight.  Something really important.  But what?

  49. @szopen

    Personally I’m big fan for geoengineering.

    Not I.  Geoengineering is a stopgap, trying to prevent an already-damaged system from getting worse.  For instance, you might be able to prevent the arctic permafrost from melting and dumping gigatonnes of methane into the atmosphere by putting enough sulfur aerosol in the stratosphere to moderate the summers there and offset the greenhouse-trapped heat travelling poleward by convection.  But what does that do to the base of the polar ocean food webs, which depend on algae?

    Or of, instead of making caps on CO2 emissions, making prizes for companies capturing CO2.

    So far the only economic use for bulk CO2 is enhanced oil recovery.  The easiest way to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere is not to generate it in the first place.  We have several success stories we can emulate:  France, Sweden, Norway, Quebec and Ontario are doing remarkably well with their electric grids (if not the rest).  Our problem is convincing the Greens that nuclear power isn’t going to lead to them watching their faces melt off in the light of their own radioactive glow.

    I’m really astounded wy my fellow rightwingers are so blind. Usually it’s conservatives who care about consequences of our actions and leftwingers who think “who cares about future”. Usually it’s conservatives who are cautious and are not ready to risk the society future. And yet here, even if the risk if small, somehow conservatives think there is no reason to make any kind of insurance.

    Yes, isn’t that a remarkable contradiction?  Almost like it was formed as part of a carefully-crafted propaganda campaign.  Disinformation.  Substitution of social shaming for reasoned argument.

    Once you see it you can’t un-see it.

  50. @Mr. Rational

    If someone made this proposal alot of climate change sceptics on the right would suddenly start believing the science but I suspect many on the left would drop the matter entirely.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  51. TheJester says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Dante’s version of Hell is scarier to me than the fire and brimstone version. Heat is obnoxious but cold is deadly!

    Audacious,

    Thank you for your reference to those “frozen” from human connections in Dante’s Ninth Circle of Hell. As a segue, I suspect that spending time ratiocinating over Dante’s Divine Comedy and the implications of the Seven Deadly Sins provides a greater prospect of understanding the human condition than dabbling in Globohomo causes, including global warming. Indeed, advocating Globohomo causes might portend a quicker demise of the human species than the worst that Global Warming alarmists can throw at us.

    Having lived both in Arctic winters and desert climes, I’ve always preferred the heat. When it’s too hot, you relax in the shade with a beer or a milt julep until the heat passes. However, when you’re cold … you’re cold!

    In my times in Saudi Arabia, it was interesting to watch the Bedouin camel and goat herders bide their time by resting in small tents until the afternoon heat abated. This was a far easier, predictable, metered, and survivable way of life than that of the Inuit I lived among in Northern Canada and Greenland.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  52. @LondonBob

    Nope, not memory-holed in the least.  9 years old and I still see it dragged up time and time again.

    Climate change is simple physics.  Up at the tropopause, almost all of the water has been wrung out of the air by condensation and precipitation so all you’re left with is the non-condensible GHGs.  If you add more GHGs you increase the altitude that heat has to reach before it can radiate freely to space as IR.  The temperature at that altitude is going to be roughly the temperature at which heat radiated equals heat influx (minus some thermal lag in the oceans, geothermal heat, etc.) so it won’t change much.  The higher that altitude, the taller the pile of air over which the 3.5°F/1000 ft temperature lapse rate increases on the way down to the surface.  Therefore, more GHGs, hotter surface QED.

    Every time I bring this up I get hysterical screeching about fraud in the CRU or some such.  Not ONE SINGLE DENIALIST has ever engaged even the one-paragraph physics description I just gave above.  When you get an emotional response to a logical argument, it’s proof that you are not dealing with honest, rational people.  The rational people are at Real Climate, not Watts Up With That.  I have no alternative but to consider Real Climate the honest ones too.

  53. @Futurethirdworlder

    The left would scream racism over any attempt to relocate the turd-worlders for any reason, even (especially!) if it was for the benefit of Americans and the world.  Their only consistent principle is that everything must make Whitey suffer/lose.  This is why they are against both White flight and gentrification.

  54. @TheJester

    Having lived both in Arctic winters and desert climes, I’ve always preferred the heat.

    Having had my vision almost go out (solid white field) when trying to exercise in a Texas summer, I’ll take exception to that.

    However, when you’re cold … you’re cold!

    You must come from a branch of humanity which never invented fire.  I’m a huge fan of wood stoves, though I do use a condensing gas furnace as a concession to convenience.  If I want to enjoy 80 degree temperatures I can have them on 45 minutes’ notice.  Coolth is not always so easy to come by.

    In my times in Saudi Arabia, it was interesting to watch the Bedouin camel and goat herders bide their time by resting in small tents until the afternoon heat abated.

    I understand there are parts of Saudi Arabia which are too hot to survive in unless you can hide underground or something.  Wasn’t there a reference to that in Lawrence of Arabia, “the worst place God made”?  By contrast, people work on the Antarctic ice cap all the time.  I know someone who went there to hunt for meteorites.  Insulation works against cold, but without an adequate heat sink you die.

  55. Sparkon says:

    The easiest way to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere is not to generate it in the first place.

    Seldom does a single statement illustrate so clearly the ignorance and folly of the global warming alarmists.

    Our problem is convincing the Greens that nuclear power isn’t going to lead to them watching their faces melt off in the light of their own radioactive glow.

    Behind many global warming alarmists you’ll find a nuclear power enthusiast, and here you are with your clumsy hyperbole and turgid strawmen.

    Meanwhile, knowledgeable people do know that CO₂ is a beneficial trace gas without which our crops could not grow. Greenhouse operators elevate CO₂ levels in their enclosures to promote more robust plant growth that additionally requires less water.

    The source of almost all warmth on Earth is our Sun. Warm and cool spells on Earth are most likely caused by variation in solar output that is reflected by numbers of sunspots.

    For that there is good empirical evidence, but the theory that CO₂ drives or is a control knob for Earth’s climate has no good evidence whatsoever as the data show that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Earth lag behind warming temperatures by up to 800 years, irrespective of whether or not the ice core records are entirely accurate proxies.

    As Earth gets warmer responding to increased TSI, the oceans begin to emit additional CO₂ in the same way your beer or soda gets flat as it warms and gives up its carbonation. Beverages lose their fizz as they get warm, so drink fast – the carbonation you save may be your own.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Mr. Rational
  56. @Mr. Rational

    CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, primarily water vapour, do contribute to warming through feedback, but my wager is that the Sun is the primary driver for whatever reason, e.g. small variations in Earth’s orbit, variations in Earth’s precession, etc. However, I call out several further points about the “warmest years in history” BS being propagated:

    1) The history isn’t long enough to support the inferences drawn;
    2) Sensors have changed considerably over that time in terms of precision & reliability;
    3) Sensors have been added in places where they never were, adding bias to the data;
    4) Vast parts of the Earth remain relatively unobserved or are measured infrequently by varying sensors of dubious calibration;
    5) Standards for location of ground sensors are too accomodating and allow for further biases in observations;

    And I could go on.

    There is the paradox that observations from remote sensing satellites and airborne sensors have been relatively stable over the past four decades, not confirming the “alarming” trend shown by the ground sensors that is used to declare the warmest years on record.

    Furthermore, the 0.8°C increase in temperatures observed over 150 years is actually statistically insignificant when all the error in the observed temperatures databases are taken into account; When expressed in Kelvin, this is nothing more than a blip. But even if it was statistically significant, the next question is, compared to what? What is the “correct” temperature for earth?

    The Keeling curve is itself fascinating in that it is a relatively recent set of observations at Mauna Kea that is frequently overlaid on ice core readings from vastly different parts of the world to reach the conclusion that CO2 levels are increasing at an alarming rate. The merging of two totally different sets of data to draw the inference of some “normal” level of CO2 should give one reason to be sceptical. But the hypothesis that more CO2 is the result of Anthropogenic activity is a bit of a reach, in that the measurements conclusively show only one thing: There is more CO2 in the atmosphere. The measurements cannot trace the CO2 to its sources. There’s a lot more volcanic and geothermal activity lately; maybe Gaia is belching more CO2 into the air lately. Maybe she has an upset stomach because solar activity has been on the uptick over the past century.

    Climate science as spun to the common man is pseudo science, nothing more than a cult of data collectors with an agenda. They and their prescriptions make me think of earlier “scientists,” like doctors who prescribed bleeding to restore the humours of sick patients, or alchemists. When you read any serious research, you see a lot of “maybes” and “might be the result of,” because serious scientists know that there is a lot they don’t know.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Mr. Rational
  57. TheJester says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Rational,

    You obviously are not aware of the massive logistical support that allows scientists to work in the Arctic. We often had them stay in our facilities that cost millions of dollars to drag to the Arctic and millions of dollars a year to sustain. That was their only option. Their window for doing work in the Arctic was also about two weeks … the two weeks from when the last snow melted and the next snows (and blizzards) began. Ah! But in those two weeks the countryside exploded in the most beautiful wildflowers imaginable. Worth seeing if anyone gets a chance to become an Arctic tourist.

    I won’t address in detail what it is like to live in total darkness for months at a time. Simple to say that it affects the mind. We called it getting “bushy”. You eventually tried to sleep sixteen hours a day if you could pull it off. I have no idea how the Intuit deal with months of total darkness as a way of life.

    The plight of the Inuit was harsh, especially before they set up their villages at the outskirts of our facilities. This gave them electricity from our massive physical plants and access to our runways with regularly scheduled flights. The planes delivered supplies, moved personnel (and Inuit) between facilities, and, most important for the Inuit, delivered what used to be called “mail order” packages … their only access to civilization.

    Life in the Arctic is a very artificial and fragile existence. Without massive logistical support from the south, the people in the Arctic don’t live and work, they struggle to survive.

  58. @Mr. Rational

    It’s generally easier for humans to live without artifice the closer they are to the equator in large part because it is warmest there. That’s my profound contribution to the discussion!

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  59. szopen says:
    @Sparkon

    > most likely caused by variation in solar output that is reflected by numbers of sunspo

    Which is why every denialist video showing how well number of sunspot correlates with temperature rise ends abruptly in the late 90s, at the time when number of sunspots stopped to correlate with temperature.

    > the theory that CO₂ drives or is a control knob for Earth’s climate has no good evidence

    Remember astrophysics and physics is part of conspiracy too.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  60. szopen says:
    @The Alarmist

    > The measurements cannot trace the CO2 to its sources.

    Actually…

    https://www.sunysuffolk.edu/explore-academics/faculty-and-staff/faculty-websites/scott-mandia/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html

    About temperature stations: remember how the guys from Berkeley were about how they will prove the data is fraud and how it has ended?

    Ayways, IMO the correct question is not “what the correct global temperature is”. The correct question is “how fast average temperature changes can be in order to allow biosphere and humanity to adapt”.

    > Climate science as spun to the common man is pseudo science

    Mostly because the common man usually does not actually understands the science.

  61. notanon says:

    everything actively pushed by the media is either an outright lie or disproportionately damaging to the West.

    true or not global warming is being used to de-industrialize the West as part of our intended destruction.

    at the same time the people pushing it are fine with shipping the industry to China where they can produce as much or more CO2 as the West used to until we’re destroyed so it makes no difference – what we doin’t produce will be produced elsewhere.

    we should completely ignore global warming until we win.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
  62. @Sparkon

    The easiest way to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere is not to generate it in the first place.

    Seldom does a single statement illustrate so clearly the ignorance and folly of the global warming alarmists.

    Seldom does anyone open with such a pure expression of their fact-free, anti-intellectual opposition.

    1.  Goes directly to the slur.
    2.  Uses FOUR attack terms in the space of 8 words.
    3.  Can’t point out a single falsehood in the statement supposedly being rebutted.

    You may or may not be stupid, Sparkon, but there can’t be any actual thought going on in a brain while it’s so thoroughly captured by rote repetition of catch-terms.

    Behind many global warming alarmists you’ll find a nuclear power enthusiast

    And now into the lies.  Most “environmental” organizations are stridently (and often hysterically) anti-nuclear.  It’s only with the rise of groups like Environmental Progress that the UCS grudgingly admitted that the USA might need to… keep its existing nuclear fleet going.  Meanwhile Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Rocky Mountain Institute plus a host of less-well known pressure groups continue to push for every last reactor to be shut down.

    There are some really good non-climate reasons to use nuclear power, like absolutely no SOx, NOx or particulates spewed into the air.  Toronto hasn’t had a single air-quality action day since Ontario closed its last coal-fired power plant.  This is something the public might, you know, ENJOY.

    knowledgeable people do know that CO₂ is a beneficial trace gas without which our crops could not grow.

    Knowledgeable people do know that CO2 is toxic to many plants if given to excess.  Excess CO2 is measured to cause reduced nitrogen uptake in plants.

    Phosphate, potash and fixed nitrogen are also essential for plant life.  Excesses of any of these can “burn” plants and cause all sorts of problems like algal blooms and subsequent fish kills.

    Greenhouse operators elevate CO₂ levels in their enclosures to promote more robust plant growth that additionally requires less water.

    Greenhouse operators also add other nutrients so the plants can make use of the additional CO2.  You can’t do that to the world at large, and given that excess nitrate from Iowa and Illinois is the ultimate cause of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, you’d wreak all kinds of havoc if you tried.

    If you take 100 aspirins in 1 day, you’ll probably die.  If you take 1 aspirin a day for 100 days, you’ll probably have no ill effects whatsoever and enjoy an extra margin of protection from heart attacks.  The dose makes the poison.

    the theory that CO₂ drives or is a control knob for Earth’s climate has no good evidence whatsoever

    The glaciations and retreats follow the Milankovic cycles.  The changes in insolation alone are too small to account for the total effects; they have to be amplified somehow.

    the data show that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Earth lag behind warming temperatures by up to 800 years

    Lag or no lag, CO2 is one of the amplifiers of the natural cycle.  Adding CO2 that’s not being driven by natural factors represents a separate forcing function which also creates feedback.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    , @Sparkon
  63. @A Random Dude

    It’s pretty transparent. I believe environmentalism is a good thing in the sense that we shouldn’t have businesses dump heavy metals and chemicals into a river but this modern day environmentalism has nothing to do with the environment and instead just another leftist cudgel to beat down the wrongthinkers.

    There is no better example than attacking anyone who refuses to be a lemming as a “denier.” Global warming is equated with the holocaust (i.e., accepted as an established fact), and anyone who disagrees with the catastrophist agenda is equated with a nazi who denies the genocide in bad faith.

    It’s just another shorthand way to put wrongthinkers in the “basket of deplorables.”

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  64. @Mr. Rational

    What is the deal with the Left’s hatred of nuclear power? Is it some weird Freudian hang-up? Do they subconsciously equate radioactivity with toxic masculinity or white privilege?

    America’s fleet of water-cooled nuclear plants — built with 1950’s technology designed for submarines — have been quietly cranking out 20% of our electricity for 50 years with no greenhouse emissions and not a single human death.

    There are really promising advanced designs that would be vastly safer and cheaper. Like pre-fabricated mini-reactors and liquid-salt Thorium reactors. https://newatlas.com/thorium-salt-reactor-experiment/51051/

    But even in this day of global warming hysteria nuclear gets no love at all.

    It’s definitely not safety or economic issues. In Germany, they actually want to shutter their perfectly good nuclear plants because . . . nuclear is somehow morally evil, or something. Instead, they want to use solar panels on the same latitude as Hudson’s Bay in one of the world’s cloudiest countries. Good luck with that.

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @Mr. Rational
  65. @notanon

    at the same time the people pushing it are fine with shipping the industry to China where they can produce as much or more CO2 as the West used to until we’re destroyed so it makes no difference – what we doin’t produce will be produced elsewhere.

    CO2 levels are global but a lot of really nasty industrial pollution is strictly local.

    So one of the up-sides of “de-industrialization” is that we get to outsource our pollution. The air in LA is like a pristine alpine valley compared with what it was in the 1970s. But you can barely see your hand in front of your face in Beijing. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38587580

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @notanon
  66. notanon says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    What is the deal with the Left’s hatred of nuclear power?

    the people controlling them don’t care about the environment – they want to de-industrialize the West

  67. notanon says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    you can barely see your hand in front of your face in Beijing

    right – if the people pushing this cared about the environment they’d want to keep industry in the West where it can be gradually cleaned up – but they don’t, they off-shore to countries with zero controls.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  68. vok3 says:

    Mr Rational:

    I also want to thank you for your posts here. You have answered (in very simple and clear terms) several doubts I’ve had about the theory.

    I can’t say I’ve seen notable warming in my part of the world. But the change in CO2 levels is very worth taking note of. I wonder if that has anything to do with the apparent large decrease in insect populations that has been noted in recent years.

  69. Most of the hydrocarbons on Earth are oxidized by microbes. Microbes not only out-consume the modern human budget of hydrocarbons, but they’ve been doing it for billions of years–probably since the inception of life. This fact makes a mockery of the fictional notion of “fossil fuels”. Hydrocarbons are a product of reactions between carbonate rock and water at great depths. The same reaction (serpentinisation) accounts for the abundance of hydrocarbons on lifeless Titan, and also, perhaps, the abundance of oil shale on Comet Haley. (1/3 kerogen!!)
    In fact, the fossil fable of hydrocarbon production violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and is thus anti-scientific:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.long
    (This is why you never see any biological evidence presented to support the preposterous fossil fable)
    Hydrocarbons are truly renewable, as demonstrated by Earth countless times over the millennia.

    People at war against carbon dioxide enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere are really at war against cheap energy, and are thus attempting to literally dis-empower the poor.
    (The French have realized this, helping to precipitate the yellow vest protests: i.e., “We work, but can no longer afford energy“)

    Members of the global warming cult don’t care about non-human combustion of hydrocarbons, just as they don’t care about old people freezing to death in winter due to energy poverty.

    It is commonly assumed that hot weather directly causes more deaths, but the reality is that more deaths generally occur in the winter.
    https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/public-health/high-mortality-days-during-the-winter-season/

    As a member of the Green Party here in Australia once told me, “you can’t tax a marine organism” (verbatim).

    Iceworms (Hesiocaeca methanicola) infest a solid piece of orange methane ice at 540m depth in the Gulf of Mexico. (Photo by Ian MacDonald – NOAA)

    more evidence here:
    http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/

    see also the greening of planet Earth caused by CO2 enrichment:
    https://www.google.com/search?&q=greening+of+earth+and+its+drivers

    The most comprehensive modelling of remote sensing data so far shows the area on Earth covered by plants in [the past 30 years] has increased by 18 million square kilometres — about 2.5 times the size of the Australian continent — largely due to the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide (CO2). – Australian Broadcasting Corporation, April 2016

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Mr. Rational
  70. Sparkon says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Your original statement:

    The easiest way to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere is not to generate it in the first place.

    Seldom does a single statement illustrate so clearly the ignorance and folly of the global warming alarmists.

    3. Can’t point out a single falsehood in the statement supposedly being rebutted.

    Ah my bad.

    For those few ignoramuses who still don’t know, all air breathing creatures on Earth — including the naked ape — exhale carbon dioxide.

    Yep, every breath you take is followed by the inevitable exhalation of CO₂, but I guess it’s necessary to spell it out for you unambiguously:

    In order to stop generating CO₂, it would be necessary for humans to stop breathing.

    It would also be necessary to stop plowing fields, to stop making concrete, and to shut down the naturally-fueled engines of modern civilization.

    Ignorance and folly like that are hard to top, but rest assured, somewhere somebody is working overtime on the project.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Mr. Rational
  71. @The Alarmist

    my wager is that the Sun is the primary driver for whatever reason, e.g. small variations in Earth’s orbit, variations in Earth’s precession, etc.

    We already know that the cycle of glaciations and retreats follows the Milankovitch cycles of seasonal phase, orbital eccentricity and axial tilt.  The problem for you is that the effects of these changes are too small to produce the observed results.  Greenhouse gases are observed to vary widely over the same cycles and provide enough positive feedback to get the job done.

    You don’t sound like someone who’s ever worked the Boltzman equation to determine just how warm (cold) Earth would be absent a greenhouse effect.  Well, I’ll do it for you.  The solar constant is roughly 1360 W/m² which averages to 340 W/m² over the entire sphere.  Albedo is roughly 0.3, so the equation is:

    340 (1 – 0.3) = 5.67e-8 W/m^2/K^4 T^4

    Solving for T, I get 254.5 K.  A globe averaging almost -20 C would be an iceball, because the albedo would climb to 0.8 or more as everything turned to ice and snow.

    Actual average temperature of Earth is about 289 K, so there’s about 33.5 K of greenhouse effect.  It doesn’t take much actual thought to realize that bumping it up another 2 K cannot be all that hard.  It is a relatively small increment.

    1) The history isn’t long enough to support the inferences drawn;

    We have centuries of data on things like the dates of the freezing and thawing of certain lakes, first and last frosts, etc.

    2) Sensors have changed considerably over that time in terms of precision & reliability;

    Some things don’t depend on sensors, so all your claims about them are irrelevant.

    Vast parts of the Earth remain relatively unobserved

    You can get a fair amount of relatively recent data from things like borehole temperature readings.  If you think there aren’t other temperature proxies, such as the depth of the summer thaw layer in permafrost areas, you’re too short for this ride.  Carbon dating the organic matter at various depths tells you how long it’s been since they were last thawed.

    When expressed in Kelvin, this is nothing more than a blip.

    When expressed in Kelvin, the difference between body temperature and room temperature is “nothing more than a blip”.  Despite this, the difference is so important that I’m certain you’d object to having your body assume room temperature.

    The Keeling curve is itself fascinating in that it is a relatively recent set of observations at Mauna Kea that is frequently overlaid on ice core readings from vastly different parts of the world to reach the conclusion that CO2 levels are increasing at an alarming rate. The merging of two totally different sets of data to draw the inference of some “normal” level of CO2 should give one reason to be sceptical.

    This statement is so abysmally truth-avoidant that I have extreme difficulty figuring out how to get through to you just how BROKEN it is.

    We have concurrent time-series data from ice records and the Keeling (and other) real-time measurements.  The latter go back more than 60 years and that’s long enough that we can recover contemporary air bubbles trapped in ice.  Basically, snowfall packs down into firn which still exchanges with the atmosphere, but once it squeezes to ice that exchange stops.  The composition of the trapped air mostly reflects what was above it when it got sealed off.  The researchers have done the comparisons, they know how this works.  Here’s a primer on ice cores and the multiple, independent ways that past conditions are measured (and verified against contemporary measurements):

    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

    Here’s something a little more in depth:

    http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Matthew_Turner/ec1340/readings/BAS_sep10.pdf

    the hypothesis that more CO2 is the result of Anthropogenic activity is a bit of a reach

    This is how I know you’ve only been listening to propaganda sources and never, ever looked at the literature or even used a calculator on published numbers.  We KNOW how much coal, oil and gas are burned every year to within a few percent.  The amount of carbon involved is 2 orders of magnitude above the natural additions like volcanic emissions.  Here’s a primer that you would have found had you bothered to look.

    There is more CO2 in the atmosphere. The measurements cannot trace the CO2 to its sources.

    Something else we know is that different sources of carbon have different ratios of the isotopes C-12 and C-13.  Plants preferentially take up C-12, while inorganic processes like deposition of carbonates are isotope-agnostic.  Fossil fuels have a C-12:C-13 ratio consistent with plant life, which is one of many reasons we know the abiotic oil hypothesis is BS.

    The C-12:C-13 ratio of the atmosphere is shifting towards more C-12.  This is consistent with fossil fuels being the source of the increased CO2.  It is not consistent with any inorganic source, such as vulcanism.  This is one of several lines of evidence which prove that the increase in CO2 from the pre-industrial ~275 ppm to today’s 411.17 ppm is due to combustion of fossil fuels by humans.

    There’s a lot more volcanic and geothermal activity lately; maybe Gaia is belching more CO2 into the air lately.

    A.  way too little and B.  isotope ratios all wrong.

    Climate science as spun to the common man

    Stop right there.  The common man is an ignoramus who makes you look like a scholar by comparison.  Given the evidence behind the whole, unvarnished truth, it would take him far too long to understand the issue to make it worth his while.  This is why it’s rational for him to remain ignorant on most issues.  He has to concentrate his knowledge on his personal situation.

    Unfortunately, when the issues require him to know about these vast issues in order to make decisions as a voter, he’s unequipped.  He makes the same mistakes with climate policy that the Venezuelans made with economic policy.  And as always with mistakes, he and his children will wind up paying for them… even if they never understand why.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  72. szopen says:
    @Sparkon

    That’s grasping at the straw. Do we really have to say explicitly all the obvious things? Yes, humans breathe out CO2. CO2 is taken by plants. When they die, the release CO2 back into atmosphere. The natural emissions of CO2 are almost in balance, what’s more – as far as I have read, and Mr Rational will surely correct me if I’m wrong, it seems that over the long turn they always tend to go into balance. The problem is excess CO2 and the timescale. I think that given enough time, a new balance would be created in earth, with excess CO2 finally going into ocean, extra plants etc. It could be that this new balance could be reached astonishingly quickly, within few thousand years (again, that’s my impression, not something I’ve read and not a scientific opinion! – I might be wrong!)

    The problem is that we do not live few thousands years and by the time the balance will be reached, a lot of rather bad consequences may fall on our grandchildren (and maybe even on our children).

    Heck, I’m an atheist, so I shouldn’t even care – but why Christians don’t care about the future of the garden given to them by God? What you will say to God, when He will ask you: what have you done with my garden? Why you were not caring for it?

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  73. szopen says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    The most comprehensive modelling of remote sensing data so far shows the area on Earth covered by plants in [the past 30 years] has increased by 18 million square kilometres — about 2.5 times the size of the Australian continent — largely due to the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide (CO2). – Australian Broadcasting Corporation, April 2016

    Yup. And yet CO2 concentration in the air have raised, meaning not enough of CO2 was sequestred by plants – the plants do not take it fast enough.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  74. @Audacious Epigone

    It’s generally easier for humans to live without artifice the closer they are to the equator

    The Inuit’s main artifice over the African consisted of warm skins to wear and tools like seal-skin kayaks.  Not exactly microelectronics, or even steam.  But without that artifice it wouldn’t be possible to live there year-round.  It does seem that the rewards of artifice increase as humanity goes into harsher, more seasonal environments.

    Reducing the range of the planet in which artifice (and intelligence, and future-time orientation) is necessary looks like a guarantee of global dysgenics.

  75. @Mr. Rational

    Something else we know is that different sources of carbon have different ratios of the isotopes C-12 and C-13. Plants preferentially take up C-12, while inorganic processes like deposition of carbonates are isotope-agnostic. Fossil fuels have a C-12:C-13 ratio consistent with plant life, which is one of many reasons we know the abiotic oil hypothesis is BS.

    Thanks for the faith-based rubbish.

    quote:

    During the 1950’s, increasingly numerous measurements of the carbon isotope ratios of hydrocarbon gases were taken, particularly of methane; and too often assertions were made that such ratios could unambiguously determine the origin of the hydrocarbons. The validity of such assertions were tested, independently by Colombo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini in Italy and by Galimov in Russia. Both sets of workers established that the carbon isotope ratios cannot be used reliably to determine the origin of the carbon compound tested.
    Colombo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini demonstrated conclusively, by a simple experiment the results of which admitted no ambiguity, that the carbon isotope ratios of methane change continuously along its transport path, becoming progressively lighter with distance traveled. Colombo et al. took a sample of natural gas and passed it through a column of crushed rock, chosen to resemble as closely as possible the terrestrial environment.27 Their results were definitive: The greater the distance of rock through which the sample of methane passes, the lighter becomes its carbon isotope ratio.
    The reason for the result observed by Colombo et al. is straightforward: there is a slight preference for the heavier isotope of carbon to react chemically with the rock through which the gas passes. Therefore, the greater the transit distance through the rock, the lighter becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the heavier is preferentially removed by chemical reaction along the transport path. This result is not surprising; contrarily, such is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of quantum mechanics and kinetic theory.
    […]
    Galimov demonstrated that the carbon isotope ratio of methane can become progressively heavier while at rest in a reservoir in the crust of the Earth, through the action of methane-consuming microbes.28 The city of Moscow stores methane in water-wet reservoirs on the outskirts of that city, into which natural gas is injected throughout the year. During summers, the quantity of methane in the reservoirs increases because of less use (primarily by heating), and during winters the quantity is drawn down. By calibrating the reservoir volumes and the distance from the injection facilities, the residency time of the methane in the reservoir is determined. Galimov established that the longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the heavier becomes its carbon isotope ratio.
    The reason for the result observed by Galimov is also straightforward: In the water of the reservoir, there live microbes of the common, methane-metabolizing type. There is a slight preference for the lighter isotope of carbon to enter the microbe cell and to be metabolized. The longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the more of it is consumed by the methane-metabolizing microbes, with the molecules possessing lighter isotope being consumed more. Therefore, the longer its residency time in the reservoir, the heavier becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the lighter is preferentially removed by methane-metabolizing microbes. This result is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of kinetic theory.
    Furthermore, the carbon isotope ratios in hydrocarbon systems are also strongly influenced by the temperature of reaction. For hydrocarbons produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process, the δ13C varies from -65% at 127 C to -20% at 177 C.29, 30 No material parameter, the measurement of which varies by almost 70% with a variation of temperature of only approximately 10%, can be used as a reliable determinant of any property of that material.
    The δ13C carbon isotope ratio cannot be considered to determine reliably the origin of a sample of methane, – or any other compound.

    J. F. Kenney
    http://www.gasresources.net/disposal-bio-claims.htm

    Gulf methane NOT produced by life – David Attenborough:

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  76. @Hypnotoad666

    There is no better example than attacking anyone who refuses to be a lemming as a “denier.”

    Like it or not, anyone who refuses to acknowledge that Earth is about 60°F warmer than it would be without a warming, moderating blanket of greenhouse gases around it IS a denier.  Ditto anyone who refuses to acknowledge that humans have added a whole bunch of additional natural (CO2, CH4) and artificial (CF4, SF6, CClF3, N2O) greenhouse gases to a system which used to be self-regulating.

    The use of the argument from ignorance is pathetic.  “We don’t know if this will do anything, therefore it cannot do anything” is utterly bogus.  If you don’t know what you’re doing, the wise thing is to be careful.  I see no care being exercised or even advocated; when you deny that it’s necessary or even desirable, you’re a denialist.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  77. @Hypnotoad666

    What is the deal with the Left’s hatred of nuclear power?

    It seems to have grown out of a grossly dishonest equation of nuclear reactors with atomic bombs.  Someone actually wrote a book called “We Almost Lost Detroit”, claiming that Fermi 1 could have gone up in a mushroom cloud.  Hans Bethe did a paper on the notion and found that the worst-case energy release would be on the order of a few hundred pounds of TNT, if memory serves.  That’s IF the top half of the core could melt and fall into the bottom half.  If the fuel elements were suspended from the top, a melt would make it fall apart and simply stop.

    America’s fleet of water-cooled nuclear plants — built with 1950′s technology designed for submarines — have been quietly cranking out 20% of our electricity for 50 years with no greenhouse emissions and not a single human death.

    Yup, but if you mention this someone is bound to bring up the SL-1 mishap which was (a) military, (b) unauthorized and (c) just an unwitting replay of the deliberate test-to-destruction of BORAX 1.  Had they pulled the control rod from a distance they would still have blown the reactor but been unharmed.

    In Germany, they actually want to shutter their perfectly good nuclear plants because . . . nuclear is somehow morally evil, or something.

    The Greens have spread the idea that a tsunami can come up the Danube and produce another Fukushima in their home.  The media are in service to this lie and the public isn’t sophisticated enough to see through it; meanwhile, the romantic vision of a bucolic agricultural Germany “living in harmony with nature” is highly attractive until you actually dig down and understand what it means in terms of population density, food security and everything else.

    I was an Ecomodernist before it had a name.  Living lightly on the earth is best done by taking as little from it as you can.  It takes precious little in the way of actinides to run an industrial civilization, and nature has no use for them itself.

  78. @AlreadyPublished

    Ah, an abiotic oiler!  I wondered how soon we’d get one here.

    <cracks knuckles>  This one is going to be fun to debunk.

    Most of the hydrocarbons on Earth are oxidized by microbes. Microbes not only out-consume the modern human budget of hydrocarbons, but they’ve been doing it for billions of years–probably since the inception of life.

    Yes, it’s quite well known that there are specialist microbial communities around oil seeps.  One suspects that the same was true around the historical oil seeps which lost their volatiles and created tar sands.

    This fact makes a mockery of the fictional notion of “fossil fuels”. Hydrocarbons are a product of reactions between carbonate rock and water at great depths.

    These bugs eat hydrocarbons; they don’t create them.  If you can’t tell the difference you’re not qualified to have an opinion.

    Precisely how carbonates and water would make hydrocarbons at great depth is something you’d have to ask yourself, if you had the slightest knowledge of chemistry.  Mixing up CaCO3 and H2O can’t yield CH2 chains unless the other product is some sort of calcium super-oxide; there are 4 oxygen atoms which have to go somewhere.  Of course, the very first thing calcium superoxides would do is oxidize the hydrocarbon right back to carbonate and water.  From this I conclude that you either failed chemistry or stuck to humanities classes, meaning you aren’t qualified to have an opinion on this either.

    Last, if abiotic mantle processes actually created oil, we’d see oil coming out of volcanoes, hydrothermal vents and ocean spreading ridges.  We see the opposite:  oil seeps and reservoirs are exclusively in and above sedimentary deposits.  Then there’s the C-13:C-12 deficit in oil vs. inorganic carbon, proving that carbonates are not the source material.  This shuts the door on the abiotic oil hypothesis; only an ignoramus can take it seriously.

    The same reaction (serpentinisation) accounts for the abundance of hydrocarbons on lifeless Titan

    Hydrothermal vents do not emit oil, they emit primarily H2S and other sulfides.  There are tube-worm communities which live around these vents, oxidizing H2S to water and elemental sulfur to drive their other life processes.  But if you can’t put these facts together and realize that they debunk the hypothesis, you don’t have a brain that can do scientific work.

    the fossil fable of hydrocarbon production violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and is thus anti-scientific

    Fee fie foe fum, I smell the stink of a funnymentalist.  They typically use these faulty claims as arguments against the non-miraculous origin of life.  (They never clue into the fact that abiotic oil would be a HUGE argument FOR abiogenesis, but their reasoning faculties have to be severely underdeveloped to believe the crap they believe in the first place.)

    The linked article proves the authors to be barefaced liars.  From the abstract:

    The constraints imposed on chemical evolution by the second law of thermodynamics are briefly reviewed, and the effective prohibition of transformation, in the regime of temperatures and pressures characteristic of the near-surface crust of the Earth, of biological molecules into hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane is recognized.

    The NAS editors and referees should be ashamed of themselves for allowing such horseshit in their proceedings.

    If this horseshit was true, it would be impossible to get petroleum-range hydrocarbons from the retorting of oil shale.  Petroleum from oil shale was a big thing during and right after the 1970’s oil price shocks and it definitely yielded crude-range hydrocarbons; there are MANY variations on the processing and most appear to operate at sea-level pressure.  There is also the process of fast pyrolysis which turns biomass into a combustible oil-like liquid, in a fraction of a second at atmospheric pressure.  Anyone asserting that processing under such conditions can only yield methane is a liar, plain and simple.

    (This is why you never see any biological evidence presented to support the preposterous fossil fable)

    ORLY?  Types of kerogen:

    Type 1 kerogen oil shales provide the highest yield of oil and are the most promising deposits in terms of conventional oil retorting.[13]

    containing alginite, amorphous organic matter, cyanobacteria, freshwater algae, and land plant resins
    Hydrogen:carbon ratio > 1.25
    Oxygen:carbon ratio < 0.15
    Shows great tendency to readily produce liquid hydrocarbons.
    It derives principally from lacustrine algae and forms only in anoxic lakes and several other unusual marine environments
    Has few cyclic or aromatic structures
    Formed mainly from proteins and lipids

    Type II: Planktonic
    Type II kerogen is common in many oil shale deposits. It is based on marine organic materials, which are formed in reducing environments.

    Now you’re the liar.

    People at war against carbon dioxide enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere are really at war against cheap energy

    No, the anti-nukes are at war against cheap energy.  Uranium costs something like 0.3¢/kWh(th), but laws and regulations price it out of the market.

  79. @Sparkon

    The easiest way to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere is not to generate it in the first place.

    For those few ignoramuses who still don’t know, all air breathing creatures on Earth — including the naked ape — exhale carbon dioxide.

    Yep, every breath you take is followed by the inevitable exhalation of CO₂, but I guess it’s necessary to spell it out for you unambiguously:

    In order to stop generating CO₂, it would be necessary for humans to stop breathing.

    Which contradicts my statement how?

    If you want heat, you can burn 3-4 tons of coal or fission a gram of uranium.  Doing something about the CO2 from the coal requires a lot of work.  The uranium requires no action about CO2.

    There is no contradiction.  You are too short for this ride.

  80. 1) “Yes, it’s quite well known that there are specialist microbial communities around oil seeps.”

    They are not “specialist”: they exist from pole to pole, throughout the entire water column, and in the deepest holes drilled in the planet. Methanotrophs are ubiquitous and vital.

    Marine microorganisms make a meal of oil.
    Head IM, Jones DM, Röling WF.
    Source: School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK. [email protected]
    Abstract

    Hundreds of millions of litres of petroleum enter the environment from both natural and anthropogenic sources every year. The input from natural marine oil seeps alone would be enough to cover all of the world’s oceans in a layer of oil 20 molecules thick. That the globe is not swamped with oil is testament to the efficiency and versatility of the networks of microorganisms that degrade hydrocarbons, some of which have recently begun to reveal the secrets of when and how they exploit hydrocarbons as a source of carbon and energy.
    PMID: 16489346 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16489346

    2) “These bugs eat hydrocarbons; they don’t create them”

    Exactly as I said, but you prefer to beat up a strawman for some reason. I wonder what that reason is?

    Microorganisms living in anoxic marine sediments consume more than 80% of the methane produced in the world’s oceans. In addition to single-species aggregates, consortia of metabolically interdependent bacteria and archaea are found in methane-rich sediments. A combination of fluorescence in situ hybridization and secondary ion mass spectrometry shows that cells belonging to one specific archaeal group associated with the Methanosarcinales were all highly depleted in 13C (to values of –96‰). This depletion indicates assimilation of isotopically light methane into specific archaeal cells. Additional microbial species apparently use other carbon sources, as indicated by significantly higher 13C/12C ratios in their cell carbon. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of simultaneous determination of the identity and the metabolic activity of naturally occurring microorganisms.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5529/484.abstract

    3) Precisely how carbonates and water would make hydrocarbons at great depth is something you’d have to ask yourself, if you had the slightest knowledge of chemistry.

    “The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons has been demonstrated using only the reagents solid iron oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, 99.9% pure and wet with triple-distilled water.” – J.F. Kenney et el, op.cit.

    Scientists in Washington, D.C. are reporting laboratory evidence supporting the possibility that some of Earth’s oil and natural gas may have formed in a way much different than the traditional process described in science textbooks.

    Their study is scheduled for Nov./Dec. issue of ACS’ Energy & Fuels, a bi-monthly publication: “In Situ Diamond-Anvil Cell Observations of Methanogenesis at High Pressures and Temperatures
    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2009/acs-presspac-november-4-2009/new-evidence-supports-19th-century-idea-on-formation-of-oil-and-gas.html

    4) “Hydrothermal vents do not emit oil, they emit primarily H2S and other sulfides.”
    And methane…

    ..hydrothermal activity at Lost City is driven by chemical reactions between seawater and mantle rocks that make up the underlying basement. […]
    The formation of magnetite during the serpentinization process involves the oxidation of ferrous iron (Fe2+) in olivine to form ferric iron (Fe3+) in magnetite and leads to what is called reducing conditions. As a consequence, reduced gas species, such as hydrogen gas (H2), methane (CH4) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), can be produced during serpentinization.
    NOAA

    5) “Last, if abiotic mantle processes actually created oil, we’d see oil coming out of volcanoes, hydrothermal vents and ocean spreading ridges.”

    Wrong. As with diamonds, the production of crude oil requires rapid quenching during transit through natural fractures.

    Perhaps you should study my webpage. It’s recommended for study by Martin Hovland (former Statoil petro-geologist, head of Geosciences at Bergen University)
    See for yourself:
    http://martinhovland.weebly.com/

  81. @AlreadyPublished

    “Hoist by his own petard” will be his epitaph.

    Thanks for the faith-based rubbish.

    The Religious Reich always projects.  (You have to, when you can neither think originally nor do research.)

    During the 1950’s, increasingly numerous measurements of the carbon isotope ratios of hydrocarbon gases were taken, particularly of methane; and too often assertions were made that such ratios could unambiguously determine the origin of the hydrocarbons. The validity of such assertions were tested, independently by Colombo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini in Italy and by Galimov in Russia. Both sets of workers established that the carbon isotope ratios cannot be used reliably to determine the origin of the carbon compound tested.

    So you’re going back 28 years to Colombo et. al. and 31 years to the work of Galimov, only to talk about methane.  Methane that YOU say is progressively DEPLETED in 12C as it travels, so it looks more and more “inorganic” over distance.  Yet, miraculously, it STILL has an “organic” isotope signature when we get it.

    From a slightly more venerable source, 1977:

    Abstract

    The use of 13C as a natural tracer in hydrocarbon exploration is discussed in theory and through examples. In general the carbon isotopic composition (expressed as δ13C values) of a hydrocarbon depends upon (1) the 13C content of the source material, (2) any fractionation attendant on its formation, and (3) any fractionation subsequent to its formation. Thus, δ13C data can potentially provide information on the source, generation, migration, and alteration of hydrocarbons.

    δ13C values of high-molecular-weight hydrocarbon components of oil and rock samples are relatively free of both primary and secondary fractionations. Thus with oils and rocks, δ13C data have correlation as their primary use, both oil-to-oil and oil-to-rock.

    These δ13C have organic signatures.  They are depleted, not enriched, in 13C compared to inorganic carbon.  Your own logic debunks your assertion.

    For hydrocarbons produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process, the δ13C varies from -65% at 127 C to -20% at 177 C.29, 30 No material parameter, the measurement of which varies by almost 70% with a variation of temperature of only approximately 10%, can be used as a reliable determinant of any property of that material.

    I’m sure this is of TREMENDOUS interest for analysis of any and all petroleum deposits formed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis from syngas.

    That would be exactly none of it.  Which is why you are an idiot to bring this up.

  82. @szopen

    I don’t think anyone denies greenhouse gases.
    It does seem silly, that it is considered the only variable that matters concerning climate change. To me, soil denaturalization, deforestation, all the pollution, those are the causes that the greenhouse gases speed up. This only gives back the dumbest and most expensive policy proposals, which are made worse because they are proposed by hippies against nuclear energy who want everyone to bike and live in apartments consuming 100% soy proteins and kale salads (mass monocrop agricultural practices, btw, are worse for climate than cattle farming – but we all know Dems are historically the planter and agribiz party, and the Chamber of Commerce Republicans help).

    • Replies: @szopen
  83. @szopen

    Telling the common man that scientists are forever above him (“The Science is above him”) does your cause no help. Perhaps that is what pisses people off more, deep down.

    • Replies: @szopen
  84. @Mr. Rational

    What do the religious have to do with it? If anything, churches are more anal about the environment lately.

    I don’t pretend to be a scientist like you (lol), but would like to humbly ask, how are measurements from only certain parts of the world really that accurate? Specially if the effects of warming clearly are disparate, as geography and other weather patterns are, and if greenhouse gasses are emitted more by some regions than others. I think it is hard to deny a climate change, what is hard to prove (specially to the common man scientists love to berate) is how bad it will be and for whom. Specially if popularizers spew all sorts of crap; Bill Nye for example was shamed by Tucker Carlson, stating that temperatures would go back to 18th century – not precisely a sht-your-pants point… nor do people seem to care about submerged Floridian coasts in 2100, or Malibu falling to the sea (the common people actually enjoy seeing that)… though at least those talking points are more realistic than The Day After Tomorrow and anything Al Gore says…

  85. @Mr. Rational

    Which is why if you climate change proponents want to succeed, you should push for nuclear, instead of pretending we can get by on solar and wind, just like a vegan decaying without animal foods. France does nuclear fine, actually helps them afford a better safety net and trains. But hey, hippies would rather tell you cow fart will kill you and that Chernobyl will happen everywhere.

  86. @Mr. Rational

    See, it’s not only the common/religious man who doesn’t understand “The Science”. Heck, is your own criticism of NAS editors and referees peer-reviewed? Lol jk.

  87. @AlreadyPublished

    Let’s wait for your website to get knocked down due to being recommended by a Norwegian scientist, since “we all know” those are beholden to fossil fuels…

  88. szopen says:
    @Disordered (with a bad memory)

    Hey, but in models CO2 is not the only parameter mentioned. Also, I do not discuss the policy, because I do think it’s kind of dumb. I am interested only in the scientific theory.

    mass monocrop agricultural practices, btw, are worse for climate than cattle farming

    Yup. “Ecological farming” also is quite bad for a climate (because of lower yield it needs more area to get the same crop, meaning more deforestation etc)

  89. szopen says:
    @Disordered (with a bad memory)

    Well, but that’s the truth. I know many people who are far more intelligent than me and sometimes I have hard time following their conversation. I work with students (I teach at the university) and I know that some students seem simply unable to grasp some concepts, and with many I have to spent many frustrating hours to make them understand quite fundamental concepts within my field and sometimes I have to dumb those concepts down (before you ask, I am rather highly valued by students; I got rewards for being a good teacher from time to time). Those students are still with intelligence above the average.

  90. Sparkon says:

    Natural processes on Earth create 30x more CO₂ than humans. Termites alone create 10x more carbon dioxide than all human activity. So do wetlands. We know more about the surface of Mars than we do about the submarine environment on Earth, where there are uncounted “black smokers” belching, spewing, yes dumping their CO₂ into the oceans, which are much bigger reservoirs of CO₂ than the terrestrial biosphere.

    In the last 1.6 million years there have been 63 alternations between warm and cold climates, and no indication that any of them were caused by changes in carbon dioxide levels.

    A recent study of a much longer period (600 million years) shows — without exception — that temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. As the earth warms, the oceans yield more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because warmer water cannot hold as much carbon dioxide as colder water.

    Termites emit ten times more CO2 than humans. Should we cap-and-tax them?

    There is no need for expensive and potentially dangerous nuclear power plants when we have abundant reserves of the entirely natural fuels of coal, oil, and natural gas. It is only because of the successful demonization of coal, CO₂, carbon, and the so-called “fossil fuels” that the West is turning its back on the cheapest and most abundant fuels, and now seems faced with a bad choice between the so-called renewables, which can’t carry their own weight, and nuclear, which carries a lot of its own bad baggage.

    Meanwhile, utility bills have skyrocketed, just as Obama promised in launching his war on coal. Are high energy costs part of the reason there are so many homeless people these days?

    Milankovitch Cycles are far too slow-moving to account for relatively rapid ups and downs in the climate during the recent geological past as reflected by LIA, Medieval Warm Period, Dark Age Cold Period, and Roman Warm Period in just the last 2000 years. These climate changes have taken place relatively quickly in geological terms, and simultaneously in both N and S Hemispheres, thus ruling out Milankovitch Cycles as the responsible agent.

    • Replies: @szopen
  91. szopen says:
    @Sparkon

    Geee, so you mean the rise of CO2 in atmosphere is not our fault. WHich means:

    (a) we know, more or less, how much co2 we produce. We try to estimate the amount produced by other sources. After taking all the unknowns into account it seems that the rise of CO2 levels is lower than expected, meaning something takes CO2.

    (b) But you imply that the rise is not because of our production. Which means that something is not only taking some part of our production, but actually something is assimilating ALL of human estimated CO2 production, and there is some additional unaccounted for source of CO2 which is as large as current human CO2 production

    Moreover, you suggest that in a system where a balance exists, with sources of CO2 and sinks of CO2, adding one more source of CO2 does not matter, because existing sources of CO2 are larger than the newly added CO2 source.

    ALso, you suggest because an event was not caused by X in the past, it means it can;t be caused by X now. For example, in the past Clark was hit many times in the face by his friends. Someone tells you that Clark was hit in the face by a stranger, and your argument is “Clark couldn’t be hit in the face by a stranger, because previously he was never hit by a stranger”. (note scientists have hypothesis explaining past climate change events, and none of them applies now)

  92. I bought The Domesday Book by Gordon Rattray Taylor in 1969. The focus was on air pollution. He mentioned global warming as a possibility but not a a serious one. So it was not on the campaign aageñda then. By the time I resigned from Friends of the Earth in the UK in 1977, I wanted nukes because I thought AGW was an unacknowledged danger of more consequence than oversold radiation dangers. I didn’t have much support.

    I am disillusioned with climatology after seeing instrument readings added to extend a series of tree ring readings to make an AGW case. I knew the tree rings didn’t show it. Instruments, tree rings, Peruvian lake deposits, Greenlànd glaciers: there’s always something to switch to.

  93. @szopen

    Your linked “smoking gun” is little more than opinion piece. More recent studies suggest annual volcanic output is at least 600 million tonnes, or 3x to 4x the levels cited, and could be possibly more because the projections made from a handful of active volcanic regions might not fairly reflect the actual diffuse catbon output of geologically active regions in general. Admittedly 600m is dwarfed by Anthropogenic output, estimated to be 27 billion, but it nevertheless suggests the actual natural background levels of atmospheric CO2 are not well understood.

  94. @Mr. Rational

    “Like it or not, anyone who refuses to acknowledge that Earth is about 60°F warmer than it would be without a warming, moderating blanket of greenhouse gases around it IS a denier.”

    Actually it would be something on the order of +230°F on the sunny side and -240°F on the dark side. Greenhouse gasses cut both ways.

  95. Tacman says:
    @Mr. Rational

    This has been a pretty interesting exchange between the two of you, and I’m probably out of my element here, but I just wanted to mention something that I thought I remembered reading and get Mr. rational’s take on it. I believe I read an article referencing a study that was about cloud cover, and how cloud cover had been a significant percentage lower over the last 30 years or so (almost exactly coinciding with the period of the rising global warming concerns). It also went on to mention how increased cloud cover can have a large cooling effect, and posited how this reduced cloud cover could be responsible for a large amount, if not all of, the measured warming over the last few decades.

    Now, it is possible that there is a feedback effect there and that the warming is somehow reducing the cloud cover. Without looking, I would be willing to bet that even if the evidence for that association is lacking someone has already drawn that conclusion. However, have either of you guys seen anything that mentions the cloud cover angle or am I just wrong here?

    Also, in regards to another of Mr. Rational’s posts about the motivations of the elite, I do think it’s interesting that the 0.1% are so against nuclear despite it’s lack of greenhouse emissions. I spent 6 years in the Navy as a reactor operator, and I can say that it is certainly a subject that is easy to sour the masses on, as most people are completely ignorant on the subject of nuclear power. Regardless of one’s stance on the global warming issue, increasing our nuclear power generation capabilities and updating our current plants would be in the best interest of the country.

  96. Dr. Doom says:

    You don’t have to insult the intelligence of the Regressive Left, they don’t believe in it.

    Everyone has the same potential they say.

    What does that word mean in their heathen tongue?

  97. @Mr. Rational

    I agree with your scientific analysis, but there are a couple of points to quibble about.

    The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum [PETM] definitely happened. We really don’t want to cause another one. It may have been set off by a runaway decomposition of methane clathrates, the aforementioned “clathrate gun”.

    The overriding aim of policy must be to avoid a catastrophic event such as the PETM. The popular media suggest that a 2°C increase in global mean temperature will trigger further runaway increases; yet the modelling indicates that this will not occur in the present century.

    Our Judaeo-Christian culture is apocalyptic, and therefore predictions of the future tend to be cataclysmic; the cataclysm is invariably attributed to our sins. To avoid the cataclysm, we must repent and punish ourselves, and do so right now. The facts about anthropogenic climate change (ACC) plug into an unhelpful cultural narrative that is thousands of years old.

    Many people (though not yourself) who fear the consequences of ACC and want to “do something” about it treat their cause as a moral crusade. The carbon economy must be shut down, with or without replacement, and the pain of doing so is, well, our just desserts. On the other side, some of the loudest opposition is quite openly financed by the oil industry; and their message sounds good to independent-minded people who do not want moral crusaders to tell them what to do. The debate is poisoned before it has even started.

    Global warming is happening and is unstoppable, although we have some control over its eventual magnitude. What to do about ACC is not chiefly a moral issue, but a scientific, engineering, economic and political one. The problem is important and urgent, but on a multi-decade timescale, not an annual one. Anyone who says we “have a year to save the planet” is not telling the truth.

    Possibly the most damaging effect of global warming is the increase in sea level, because many cities are built close to sea level – yet modelling suggests an increase of “only” 0.6m at the end of this century – serious enough, but not the 6m rise of the Eemian interglacial, or the 25m of the Pliocene.

    Not all the news suggests a bleak future for 2100 AD.

    Alternative sources of energy are improving all the time. The Indian government recently decided to build solar power stations in place of coal-fired ones, because they were more economical. I had not been expecting solar power to become this cost-effective in my lifetime.

    Now, the USA is blessed with large areas of desert and semi-desert that have no economic or human use at present, and so it is well-placed to lead the abandonment of fossil fuels when further improvements in the economics of solar power make this a viable proposition.

    Nuclear power has to be part of the solution – but the truth is that it is still too expensive when the costs of processing spent fuel and decommissioning are taken into account. The new nuclear power stations planned for the UK will generate electricity at twice the price of other sources.

    Benign forms of geo-engineering are possible. The developed world has a lot of under-utilised farmland that could be planted with fast-growing trees. Seeding the deep oceans with nutrients is another possibility.

    The most important thing is that we have at least 80 years to develop solutions to ACC. Investment in research and development over this timescale can save us.

    P.S. A well-known PETM researcher is almost my namesake (James P. Kennett) – he is no relation.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  98. Sparkon says:
    @James N. Kennett

    The great global warming scam, straight from the horse’s mouth:

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
    climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
    bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    – Christine Stewart,
    former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    Here are the high temperature records for each state, with date(s) set or tied*, as documented by NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.

    AL 112 09061925
    AK 100 06271915
    AZ 128 06291994
    AR 120 08101936
    CA 134 07101913
    CO 114 1933/1954
    CN 106 1916/1995
    DE 110 07211930
    FL 109 11111980
    GA 112 1952/1983
    HA 100 04271931
    ID 118 07281934
    IL 117 07141954
    IN 116 07141936
    IA 118 07201934
    KS 121 07241936*
    KY 114 07281930
    LA 114 08101936
    MA 105 July 1911*
    MD 109 Aug 1918*
    MS 107 08021975
    MI 112 07131936
    MN 115 07291917
    MI 115 08291930
    MO 118 07141954
    MT 117 1893/1937
    NE 118 1934/1936*
    NV 125 06291994
    NH 106 07041911
    NJ 110 07101936
    NM 122 06271994
    NY 108 07221926
    NC 110 08211983
    ND 121 07061936
    OH 113 0721934
    OK 120 Aug 1936*
    OR 119 08101898
    PA 111 07101936*
    RI 104 08021975
    SC 113 06292012
    SD 120 1936/2006
    TN 113 08091930*
    TX 120 1936/1994
    UT 117 07051985
    VT 107 07071912
    VA 110 1900/1954*
    WA 118 1928/1961
    WV 112 1930/1936
    WI 114 07131936
    WY 115 1983/1988

    One all-time temperature record set already in the 21st century, and one tie! Meanwhile the decade of the 1930s set 19 all-time temperature records in the United States. Of course, the records only apply to the length of the instrumental temperature record for that state.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  99. @Sparkon

    I’m not sure what point you are making with your quotes. Timothy Wirth and Christine Stewart were politicians, not scientists. Wirth was concerned about saving energy, and thought that scaring people with global warming was a good way to promote energy efficiency. He didn’t care whether or not global warming was real, as long as fear of it helped him achieve his goals. Christine Stewart had similar ideas about using global warming to promote environmentalism and global equality. It is not clear to me how she thought this would work, but, like Wirth, she had her own goals that she thought could be advanced by using the fear of global warming. Neither Wirth nor Stewart was telling us anything useful about global warming itself. However, they remind us to be wary of “solutions” offered by politicians, especially when they try to exploit public fear.

    When trying to measure global warming, the most useful temperature measurements are global or hemispheric averages. All-time high-temperature records for the USA are a poor proxy. See https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/ and select “Global” figures.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  100. Sparkon says:
    @James N. Kennett

    I’m not sure what point you are making with your quotes. Timothy Wirth and Christine Stewart were politicians, not scientists.

    The point is that politicians make policy.

    Politicians also hand out grants enabling scientists to carry on with their research. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that some scientists tell the policy makers what they want to hear, so the grants keep flowing?

    Whatever the case, not all scientists buy into the man-made (runaway) global warming conjecture, and some scientists reject it entirely as evidenced by the Global Warming Petition Project, signed by over 31,000 scientists, including over 9,000 with PHDs

    Currently, it is 50°F outside on my patio, and 76°F inside for an “average temperature” of 63°, which for all intents and purposes is an entirely meaningless number.

    The low this morning here was about 44° according to my thermometer, and the forecast calls for a high today around 72°, but the current local temperature according to weather.com is 60°F, or +10°F difference from what I can see on my patio thermometer in my rural environment.

    As a great number of rural temperature stations were eliminated, the surface temperature record was contaminated by the urban heat island effect, and that’s just the beginning…

    More serious, perhaps, is the continued failure of NOAA to recognize that its climate record is really quite wrong. This official record shows a warming at the beginning of the 20th century and also at the end. The first warming is genuine, the second warming is an artifact, based on an incomplete analysis of all of the available data.

    Second, while the warming may exist in the surface record of weather stations, it does not exist in the atmospheric record. In fact, the gap between model results based on increasing CO2 and the atmospheric observations is continuing to grow. Scientists are at a loss in trying to explain the puzzling ineffectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

    –S. Fred Singer

    Yes, NOAA must adjust data — but its climate record really is quite wrong

    When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

    –Christopher Booker

    The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS