The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT: North American Glaciers Provide Billions with Drinking Water
🔊 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

Who knew there were billions of people in North America? Or is that the expected population of North America once all the racists who believe in borders are dealt with?

It’s fascinating how Climate Change and Migration are concepts in wholly separate silos in the MSM mind.

I’m no expert, but I take the idea of Global Warming seriously because it appears that glaciers in both Europe and the United States have visibly receded over my lifetime. So have exotic glaciers in the tropics, such as the ones on the highest mountain in New Guinea, next to the giant gold mine.

But, North America is remarkably lacking in rivers in populated areas that are heavily glacier-fed. The Yukon certainly is, but it’s of little importance to human beings. The Mississippi above St. Louis is entirely non-glacier fed, as is the Ohio, Tennessee, and the Hudson. Glaciers are of quite minor importance to the amount of water in the Colorado River, and only slightly more in the Columbia and Missouri.

 
Hide 178 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not the people who have proposed solutions to fix it.

    • Replies: @Bard of Bumperstickers
    Never fear. Warming and melting will stimulate growth of sponges on the ocean floor, which will in turn absorb all of the melt and more, thereby actually lowering water levels by a (computer-modelled) average of three to five feet. Pray for the sponges' reproductive health, lest we drown!
    , @Paleo Liberal
    Which people?

    I saw an article in Science Magazine in January by the fellow who coined the term “Green New Deal”.

    He explained what he meant by it. He made a ton of sense. And his Green New Deal is absolutely nothing like the Jill Stein / AOC “Green New Deal”.

    His proposal was to stop giving tax breaks for “Brown” energy, such as coal and oil, and use the money for “Green” energy instead. He pointed out, correctly, that the Chinese are getting a tremendous head start on us in renewable energy, to the point where we have to import from China. IMO, us being dependent on the Chinese for our energy is a national security nightmare.

    He also said a real Green New Deal should not bankrupt the nation.

    The problem with the so-called GND of Stein and AOC is it is not a real Green New Deal. Some parts of it are great. Some are not very well thought out. Some parts fall flat on their face. We cannot guarantee jobs for everyone and have open borders. We can not eliminate gas cars in 12 years when cars last 20 years and electric technology is not ripe. If you have $75,000 to spare you can get a nice SUV with a range of over 200 miles, but you have to charge it overnight.

    I want a REAL Green New Deal. Not the Stein / Ocasio Red-Green Hodgepodge.

    Sorry to say this. I am not a socialist, but I come a lot closer to being a socialist than other posters here. I realize that demanding even a mild form a socialism along with a Green New Deal is a poison pill. We need conservative conservationists. We need duck hunters and fishermen and snowmobilers on the same side as the hippy dippy tree huggers. I would love to see Medicare for All. But that is NOT a precondition for preserving our planet. It is a very different battle.

    I would love to see jobs for all Americans. But jobs for all plus open borders is a recipe for environmental disaster. “Abolish ICE” is not Green. It is fashionable pseudo socialist. Not even real socialism.

    Maybe I am just a grumpy old man.
    , @Anon

    I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not the people who have proposed solutions to fix it.
     
    There is probably some clever variation of Salena Zito's "The press takes Trump literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally" that could be constructed in relation to climate change.
    , @Mr. Anon

    I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not the people who have proposed solutions to fix it.
     
    I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not many of the people who espouse it.
    , @Bubba

    I’m no expert, but I take the idea of Global Warming seriously because it appears that glaciers in both Europe and the United States have visibly receded over my lifetime.
     
    Please chill Steve while enjoying a bottle of wine and watching this again...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

    One of your Rice U. alumni buddies has a wonderful blog on the BS of global warming.

    https://realclimatescience.com
  2. It’s fascinating how Climate Change and Migration are concepts in wholly separate silos in the MSM mind.

    Not true at all they claim migrants are “Climate Refugees”

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/how-climate-change-is-fuelling-the-us-border-crisis

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    Not true at all they claim migrants are “Climate Refugees”

    Exactly. The notion of "climate refugees" is how they figured they could rationalize forcing the West to take in hundreds of millions of invaders from "the Global South." Weather patterns driven by climate change cause heat waves, drought, erosion, and force Muslims and Africans to breed like rabbits. It's amazing all the things that carbon dioxide can do. As everyone knows, before climate change became a thing Sub-Saharan Africa was pretty much paradise.

    Of course there is no way in hell that we will ever reduce carbon emissions to the level the climate hustlers want, so we will never ever get to a point where we will be allowed to say "Ok, problem fixed. These people need to stop coming." Especially since increased population in the West leads to greater overall production of CO2 gas. It's like a vicious cycle.
  3. Or is that the expected population of North America once all the racists who believe in borders are dealt with?

    Exactly. But even if the population reaches one billion by the end of this century as its intended to, once the productive whites die off the racial pigsty that will be N. America will implode. There won’t be any free shit, free food and free medical care financed by whitey and there will be a mass die off of the bipedal life forms squatting on the carcass of a rotting America and Canada.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Exactly. But even if the population reaches one billion by the end of this century as its intended to, once the productive whites die off the racial pigsty that will be N. America will implode. There won’t be any free shit, free food and free medical care financed by whitey and there will be a mass die off of the bipedal life forms squatting on the carcass of a rotting America and Canada.
     
    Not true. No mass die off.

    This is one of those "future" prediction cases where we have a reasonably good model of what America is morphing into--Brazil.

    Only if these white haters persist with their open borders madness and Steve's "world's most important graph" kicks in will zip on past Brazil. Even then a mass die off is unlikely. Even then we still have a reasonable model of what the US looks like--Africa.
    , @Bill Jones
    People in the US consume and require orders of magnitude more water than those in third world shitholes.- Here's looking at the Guats et al.
    The collection, treatment distribution and disposal of this water is a great strain on the environment. The climate Kult should be barring the border with their bodies to prevent the immigration invasion rapine of Gaea.
  4. And if those glacier fed crops dry up what in the world are we going to do with all these field laborer…er…migrants?

  5. Amanpour & Co. on PBS is always going on about climate change but nary a mention of overpopulation. From the scenes of the protests they show from Europe it appears to me to be young girls trying to gain attention. Look at me!

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    "From the scenes of the protests they show from Europe it appears to me to be young girls trying to gain attention. Look at me!"
     
    For the last three days, London has seen "climate demonstrations" aimed at bringing the place to a standstill. These eco-warriors/terrorists/nuisances are all white and middle class, high female representation. Plenty of public school lefties. The demos are probably a good place to pull if you're a young white male or exotic minority (who are generally absent from the protests).
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Dttb, An interview between Susan Goldberg, the "first jew and woman to be editor of National Geographic" (her description, not mine) and Melinda Gates , Goldberg asks Gates, if she had a magic wand (as if Bill's wand wasn't magic enough) what would she wish for. Melinda's surprising answer is : contraception for at least 200 million woman.
  6. The entire edifice of establishment global warming crap is held up by lies and unreality. The further we go without the world ending, the larger their lies and breathless threats. Billions without water, glaciers disappear, everyone spontaneously combusts.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Meanwhile, for those of us who live in the real world, here’s what the global warming scam is all about:

    This can never be repeated enough:

    http://www.investors.com/po…

    “At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    and

    http://www.cfact.org/2017/0…

    “Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.””

  7. The Missouri gets some glacial water in northern Montana.

  8. Who knew there were billions of people in North America? Or is that the expected population of North America once all the racists who believe in borders are dealt with?

    Well, according to critical race theory, the environment is a waste of space. It is so obvious that white people care too much about the environment at the expense of the aspiring, colored masses. The environment has to go, and will go if the cuck/left alliance prevails.

  9. Elites use global warming to explain why various tried worlders are entitled to come to the first world.

    But seriously, how can they be so concerned with global warming without being concerned about Africa’s population growth rate?

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Simple.

    Very few people are really logical.

    There were a few politicians in the old days, such as Gaylord Nelson and Dick Lamm, who were true environmentalists and saw the dangers of mass immigration to our ecology. What happened to them?

    Nelson was voted out of the Senate in 1980 in the Reagan election. Lamm served 3 terms as governor but lost the senate primary to Ben Nighthorse Campbell in 1992. They both went on to lead what was left of the lower population ecology movement, and were pushed to the side by the big bucks of the open borders movement.

    People believe what they are told to believe. I have read scientific papers on global warming for over 30 years and even done a small amount of research in the field. I believe it because the science makes sense to me and the predictions are coming true. Others on the left believe it because they are told to believe it, and many on the right disbelieve it because they are told not to believe it.

    People on the left are told they can be environmentally conscious and still be in favor of open borders, so they believe it. Many just want to be on the other side of Trump on every issue wrong or right.

    I discovered the hard way many years ago that when people make up their minds, they don’t let mere facts sway them.

    I like Steve because although he and I are on different sides of the political spectrum, we sometimes agree because the facts point us that way.
  10. Oh that Carl Zimmer, always joking around.

  11. How can anyone be for the environment yet at the same time for more immigration? Liberals used to be tree huggers who railed on developers who want to cut down trees and build more housing, now they are all about “affordable housing” a.k.a. high density housing in all our cities large and small to accommodate yet more immigrants. In our local city council, the most liberal members are also the biggest supporters of developers who want to build more high density housing everywhere, regardless of traffic. These are not your grandfather’s liberals.

    Even REI is now all about “climate change” instead of preserving our green spaces.

    Liberals are a waste of oxygen.

  12. California is essentially desert scrub. It also supplies a significant area of prime farmland. A nation’s national security is directly tied to its ability to feed itself, sans imports.

    Just two reasons that California is the worst choice to declare as a Sanctuary State in the entire Union.

    The reptilian Sierra Club, the wildly corrupt GreenPeace, and other environmentalist organizations that support politicians who advocate for California as a Sanctuary State are de facto anti-environmental extremist groups, and should be addressed as such.

    They are California’s equivalent to the Bolsheviks, and should be politically and financially undermined, and otherwise actively opposed at every single opportunity.

    These organizations are evil, and are actively accelerating the decay of the state of California.

    • Replies: @Icy Blast
    California is not "essentially desert scrub." It is only about 12% desert. And there are 12 mountain ranges in California. Ever heard of the Sierra Nevadas, the Cascades, and the San Gabriels, to name just three? Turn off the TV and do some reading. PBS is not an educational resource. (By the way, the south end of the Cascades is in Northern California. Ever heard of Mount Shasta? People like you amaze me with their TV-based idiocy.)
  13. I know that I’m an apostate but, when I hear “global warming,” I hear “overpopulation” (with a sideorder of globalism über alles).

    • Replies: @bomag

    ... when I hear “global warming,” I hear “overpopulation”
     
    Agree, and that applies to many of today's issues: resource depletion; migration; pollution; water problems; etc.

    Liberals used to fret about population numbers, but then they discovered demographic replacement of their political opponents, so all is okay now.
  14. >but I take the idea of Global Warming seriously because it appears that glaciers in both Europe and the United States have visibly receded over my lifetime.<

    Maybe your time frame is too small?

  15. Many of the permanent snowfields in the Rockies have disappeared or gotten smaller over the past two or three decades. Summertime above timberline is grayer than before. Climate does change, but it is folly for us to attempt to control it. We must prepare for it.

    • Replies: @Robert Hume
    There are Caltech scientists who have convincingly shown that most glacier and ice melting is due to greater absorption of energy from the sun because of deposition human-caused soot and of dust from plowing.

    This theory is accepted and intensively studied by most of the relevant scientists in China and India. They are concerned because most of their water comes from melting glaciers.


    These causes of warming can be much more easily and effectively reduced then can the warming due to carbon dioxide.
  16. >takes global warming seriously
    >has posted zero plans to force the Chinese to stop industrializing or to monitor third world thirdworldliness
    This is the environmental equivalent of a new year’s resolution.
    Sure GW is probably happening, but none of the proposals are anything but power grabs without any pretense of helping, and we should reject the phony moral tone coming from people worried about glaciers but silent about Islamism.
    Also not mattering: the overwhelming and time-resilient consensus of the vast majority of Americans regarding immigration.
    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2019/04/16/americans-never-supported-mass-immigration/

    • Replies: @bc
    Yes, GW and open borders are alike in that prime movers of both are rich and powerful persons whose true intentions are not discussed openly, and many supporters of both are either misguided (with good intentions) or subconsciously concerned with status seeking and being au courant.
  17. If you care about climate change, shouldn’t you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?

    • Replies: @bomag

    ...shouldn’t you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?
     
    This becomes an excuse to lecture us on why we all need to cut back on behalf of everyone in the world.

    For the children.
    , @AKAHorace
    If you care about climate change, shouldn’t you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?



    Also, a high standard of living is more energy intensive in a cold climate where you need central heating to live comfortably and cycling is impossible during the winter.
    , @njguy73

    If you care about climate change, shouldn’t you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?

     

    From the NY Times, November 4, 1990:

    Needless to say, few Earth Firsters actually practice Deep Ecology. Not many have given up their cars or unplugged their word processors. Even Dave Foreman, wearing a Hawaiian shirt and chomping on a cheeseburger in a Ramada Inn in downtown Tucson, Ariz., his home city, looks every bit the middle-class American he admits to being. "Certainly I recognize the contradiction in flying all over the country to give speeches about not doing that sort of thing," Foreman says casually between bites. "There are constantly contradictions."
     

    Foreman isn't sure how many human beings the earth could support in a society that gave equal rights to all creatures. But Arne Naess, a Norwegian philosopher who coined the term Deep Ecology, once suggested, in all seriousness, a target population for the globe of 100 million people.

    Such thinking has lead some Earth Firsters to view human beings as, in Foreman's words, "a cancer on nature." Indeed, Foreman goes so far as to argue that the United States ought to be closed to immigration. His reasoning is that an influx of people striving to live a middle-class life in America will deplete our resources faster than if they'd remained home in the third world.

    Foreman has also suggested that such human tragedies as the AIDS epidemic and African famines can be viewed as examples of nature healing itself. Rather than send foreign aid to Ethiopia, he once argued, "the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve."
     
    https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/04/magazine/if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-they-hear-it.html
  18. Dem dam white glazas be racist. If dey wuz black, da white man dun care nuffin bought dem meltin.

  19. @Arclight
    If you care about climate change, shouldn't you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?

    …shouldn’t you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?

    This becomes an excuse to lecture us on why we all need to cut back on behalf of everyone in the world.

    For the children.

  20. Nestle could distribute it to billions of people worldwide. For a nominal fee.

  21. @Barnard
    I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not the people who have proposed solutions to fix it.

    Never fear. Warming and melting will stimulate growth of sponges on the ocean floor, which will in turn absorb all of the melt and more, thereby actually lowering water levels by a (computer-modelled) average of three to five feet. Pray for the sponges’ reproductive health, lest we drown!

  22. Most of my local water supply comes from glaciers/snowmelt. The Nooksack river has that milky greenish color you get from glacial silt.

    But shrinking glaciers are not our primary water problem, or even a problem at all. Flooding is the main concern here. Happens almost every year. We’ve got more water than we know what to do with.

    The vast majority of glacial meltwater flows directly into northern seas. In SE Alaska the Inside Passage is creamy from all the silt. Hardly any of it is used for human consumption.

    These global warming people constantly discredit themselves with all the bullshit they put out on a regular basis. Their biggest accomplishment is frightening children who don’t know any better.

    If there is actually global warming from extra co2, it stands to reason that the earth will become more moist and fertile, just like it was in prior warm periods. We’d be in much bigger trouble if another Younger Dryas came our way.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Good comment Bill. Didn't realize you were up Bellingham way.


    Glaciers are not some magical water source, that creates water. Water comes from the same old, same old--rain and snow. Glaciers are a water store. They move water--river flows--in time. In the steady state they basically move river flows from winter/spring to spring/summer/fall. That can be good or bad for humans depending on what the rainfall pattern is in a particular.

    Long term glaciers move water from "cold times" to "warm times". So global warming actually produces more water as glaciers release water "stolen" from prior centuries, millenia.

    If humans like the water storage/time-management that glaciers provide they can always do it themselves. They are called "dams".

    ~~

    And spot on on the Younger Dryas. Warming we can tolerate. It's the return of the Ice Age that would be a whoop ass. Civilization is a big Holocene party ... the ice comes back ... the party's over!

  23. New York Times fact checkers have been missing in action for at least 15-20 years.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    You'll recall the lack of fact checking for Duranty's lies in the 1930's

    https://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2011/10/walter-duranty-joseph-stalin-new-york.html

    https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/
  24. Growing up I recall being told that the melting of the polar icecaps would be terrible because the ice caps make up a large proportion of the non-salt water on the planet, and if they melted all that water would become salty. I always wondered why exactly that would be a problem.

  25. Considering some of the receding glaciers have left uncovered evidence of earlier human activity, I take climate change seriously too; just not the cock and bull that it is solely a modern problem that can only be fixed by deindustrialising western civilisation. Consider this:

    “What fascinates scientists about the age of the finds is that they correspond to times when climate specialists have already calculated the Earth was going through an especially warm period, caused by fluctuations in the orbital pattern of the Earth in relation to the Sun.
    At these times, historians now speculate, the high mountain regions became accessible to humans.

    Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm

    • Replies: @Travis
    good point. Humans thrived when the climate was warmer. Other factors effect our climate much more than CO2 levels, such as the cycles of the Sun..

    Glaciers have been shrinking for the past 20,000 years, thus the continued trend of slowly retreating glaciers is not evidence of climate change. If the Glaciers started growing this would be more indicative of climate change.
  26. Steve, you’ve got enough sacred cows on your case already, but if Climate Change we’re the thing it is claimed to be, it wouldn’t be left up to the SJW types to promote awareness.

    The silence of the competent speaks volumes.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna

    if Climate Change we’re the thing it is claimed to be, it wouldn’t be left up to the SJW types to promote awareness.
     
    So the hundreds of scientists--including virtually all the leaders in the relevant fields--as formal signatories to declarations mean nothing to you?

    Are you ever right about anything?

  27. @Barnard
    I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not the people who have proposed solutions to fix it.

    Which people?

    I saw an article in Science Magazine in January by the fellow who coined the term “Green New Deal”.

    He explained what he meant by it. He made a ton of sense. And his Green New Deal is absolutely nothing like the Jill Stein / AOC “Green New Deal”.

    His proposal was to stop giving tax breaks for “Brown” energy, such as coal and oil, and use the money for “Green” energy instead. He pointed out, correctly, that the Chinese are getting a tremendous head start on us in renewable energy, to the point where we have to import from China. IMO, us being dependent on the Chinese for our energy is a national security nightmare.

    He also said a real Green New Deal should not bankrupt the nation.

    The problem with the so-called GND of Stein and AOC is it is not a real Green New Deal. Some parts of it are great. Some are not very well thought out. Some parts fall flat on their face. We cannot guarantee jobs for everyone and have open borders. We can not eliminate gas cars in 12 years when cars last 20 years and electric technology is not ripe. If you have $75,000 to spare you can get a nice SUV with a range of over 200 miles, but you have to charge it overnight.

    I want a REAL Green New Deal. Not the Stein / Ocasio Red-Green Hodgepodge.

    Sorry to say this. I am not a socialist, but I come a lot closer to being a socialist than other posters here. I realize that demanding even a mild form a socialism along with a Green New Deal is a poison pill. We need conservative conservationists. We need duck hunters and fishermen and snowmobilers on the same side as the hippy dippy tree huggers. I would love to see Medicare for All. But that is NOT a precondition for preserving our planet. It is a very different battle.

    I would love to see jobs for all Americans. But jobs for all plus open borders is a recipe for environmental disaster. “Abolish ICE” is not Green. It is fashionable pseudo socialist. Not even real socialism.

    Maybe I am just a grumpy old man.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    The reason the Chinese cornered the market on renewables is that they anticipated soaking up all the tax spoils from stupid ideas like the Paris Climate Accord and the "Green New Deal." In the meanwhile, Chinese are burning the dirtiest, cheapest fuel they can buy. They actually buy petcoke from us to burn in power plants. In case you don't know, that's the toxic slag left over from refining petroleum.
    , @Mr McKenna

    I would love to see jobs for all Americans. But jobs for all plus open borders is a recipe for environmental disaster. “Abolish ICE” is not Green.
     
    Funny you should mention, because the #1 story in the NYT tonight is all about abolishing prisons as an idea whose time has come. To go along with open borders, no prisons! Then we have guaranteed income for everyone. Free medical care, free housing! Genius! Why didn't we think of all these good things before? Racism is my guess.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/magazine/prison-abolition-ruth-wilson-gilmore.html

    , @EldnahYm
    Green energy is mostly a sham and Chinese implementation of it is a sham.

    You can't produce steel, run tankers, create artificial fertilizers, fly airplanes, etc. with renewable energy. Furthermore most of the so-called renewables used today are old technology, like wood, charcoal, straw, hydroelectric energy etc. Back in the day we used old renewables as a much greater share of our total energy. The result of which was massive deforestation and near extinction for many species of whales. Nowadays North America and Europe are reforesting and the whales are recovering thanks to fossil fuels. Even hydroelectric dams are not particularly good for the environment. They have been catastrophic for eels and lampreys in many areas for example.

    Solar and wind use are trivial. If you look at historic energy transitions, they take many decades, and renewables are going to be even slower. In the current day it actually takes decades just for global fossil fuel usage as a percentage of total energy to go down 1%. Solar and wind both really only work in certain areas of the world, they have to be turned off during seasons when natural disasters are a threat, their output is unpredictable and low, and they're not particularly robust. Wind power has the extra negative that it is unpleasant to live around, and is bad for birds and bats.

    Even worse many idiots are recommending biofuels, which are a massive cause of deforestation, drive up food prices, and are a disaster for the environment. Export of them are good for some third world countries however, which also means they are bad for the environment.

    As for electric cars, they're not going to make a big difference in the end. The amount of energy it takes to produce new cars and the fact that Americans in particular continue to want bigger cars and more powerful engines means the efficiency gains will be minor. The impact on the grid of having large numbers of people charging their vehicle overnight is probably going to mean more plants will have to be open at late hours. It may even be a net energy loss.

    Green energy is a bad idea. Solar panels are a niche application only and we should ban all new windmills. The U.S. + Canada are practically energy independent already, and that's with shutting down some coal mines and offshoring which we can reopen in the future. China cornering the renewables market is no national security threat, it's just a bad investment for the Chinese(in particular since there's little use domestically for it). Environmentalists of the current day probably are a national security threat however.
    , @bc
    Respect for your recognition that environmentalism is inconsistent with open borders.
  28. I’m no expert, but I take the idea of Global Warming seriously because it appears that glaciers in both Europe and the United States have visibly receded over my lifetime.

    What do you mean by “I take the idea of Global Warming seriously“? Because what is on offer from the alarmists is global socialism. Are you ready to sign up for their program? If not, why not? After all, you take it seriously, and they have the solution proposed by all the serious people. All the experts say we must do something, and that something is always total global socialism under control of the experts.

    Well, what say ye?

  29. @Paleo Liberal
    Which people?

    I saw an article in Science Magazine in January by the fellow who coined the term “Green New Deal”.

    He explained what he meant by it. He made a ton of sense. And his Green New Deal is absolutely nothing like the Jill Stein / AOC “Green New Deal”.

    His proposal was to stop giving tax breaks for “Brown” energy, such as coal and oil, and use the money for “Green” energy instead. He pointed out, correctly, that the Chinese are getting a tremendous head start on us in renewable energy, to the point where we have to import from China. IMO, us being dependent on the Chinese for our energy is a national security nightmare.

    He also said a real Green New Deal should not bankrupt the nation.

    The problem with the so-called GND of Stein and AOC is it is not a real Green New Deal. Some parts of it are great. Some are not very well thought out. Some parts fall flat on their face. We cannot guarantee jobs for everyone and have open borders. We can not eliminate gas cars in 12 years when cars last 20 years and electric technology is not ripe. If you have $75,000 to spare you can get a nice SUV with a range of over 200 miles, but you have to charge it overnight.

    I want a REAL Green New Deal. Not the Stein / Ocasio Red-Green Hodgepodge.

    Sorry to say this. I am not a socialist, but I come a lot closer to being a socialist than other posters here. I realize that demanding even a mild form a socialism along with a Green New Deal is a poison pill. We need conservative conservationists. We need duck hunters and fishermen and snowmobilers on the same side as the hippy dippy tree huggers. I would love to see Medicare for All. But that is NOT a precondition for preserving our planet. It is a very different battle.

    I would love to see jobs for all Americans. But jobs for all plus open borders is a recipe for environmental disaster. “Abolish ICE” is not Green. It is fashionable pseudo socialist. Not even real socialism.

    Maybe I am just a grumpy old man.

    The reason the Chinese cornered the market on renewables is that they anticipated soaking up all the tax spoils from stupid ideas like the Paris Climate Accord and the “Green New Deal.” In the meanwhile, Chinese are burning the dirtiest, cheapest fuel they can buy. They actually buy petcoke from us to burn in power plants. In case you don’t know, that’s the toxic slag left over from refining petroleum.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    And the air in China is toxic.

    The cost of renewable energy goes down sort of like Moore’s Law only a little slower. So when the Chinese corner the market, at some point it is cheaper to use Chinese windmills and solar panels than non-renewable energy clean enough for US standards. At that point we are dependent on the Chinese. And that time is not very far away in the grand scheme of things. I still consider that possibility a national security threat. Just as Carter came up with the idea is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a national security issue, a true Green New Deal would recognize US dependence on Chinese technology as a national security issue.
    , @Hypnotoad666
    To the extent the Chinese want to dump below-cost solar panels in our market we should let them. It's basically a form of foreign aid to us that also helps the environment.

    During the Obama administration, however, they put up protective tariffs against imported solar panels. This showed that they really didn't care about increasing solar power but only subsidizing crony "green" business intetests.
    , @Neil Templeton
    God put us on this planet to mine the carbon the brain-dead dinos managed to bury deep beneath the crust, and free it to the atmosphere to sustain life for the rest of His creatures. The dinos failed Him, but we must not. We have but one job....
  30. But Steve, the Mississippi was glacier fed only a little while ago.

    The Laurentide Glacier fed it!

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet

    It could come back.

    • Replies: @Mike Zwick
    The Mississippi took its current course, pretty much from Davenport, Iowa to just north of St. Louis, because the Illinoisan Glaciation of 130000 years ago blocked its former course. The Illinois River from just north of Peoria, Illinois was once the Mississippi. The Des Plaines River, in the Chicago Area, was created as a spillway from glaciers retreating during the end of the last glacial maximum.
  31. @Spangel
    Elites use global warming to explain why various tried worlders are entitled to come to the first world.

    But seriously, how can they be so concerned with global warming without being concerned about Africa’s population growth rate?

    Simple.

    Very few people are really logical.

    There were a few politicians in the old days, such as Gaylord Nelson and Dick Lamm, who were true environmentalists and saw the dangers of mass immigration to our ecology. What happened to them?

    Nelson was voted out of the Senate in 1980 in the Reagan election. Lamm served 3 terms as governor but lost the senate primary to Ben Nighthorse Campbell in 1992. They both went on to lead what was left of the lower population ecology movement, and were pushed to the side by the big bucks of the open borders movement.

    People believe what they are told to believe. I have read scientific papers on global warming for over 30 years and even done a small amount of research in the field. I believe it because the science makes sense to me and the predictions are coming true. Others on the left believe it because they are told to believe it, and many on the right disbelieve it because they are told not to believe it.

    People on the left are told they can be environmentally conscious and still be in favor of open borders, so they believe it. Many just want to be on the other side of Trump on every issue wrong or right.

    I discovered the hard way many years ago that when people make up their minds, they don’t let mere facts sway them.

    I like Steve because although he and I are on different sides of the political spectrum, we sometimes agree because the facts point us that way.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    I don’t really understand climate science so I have little opinion on the matter. Generally I support conservation efforts for endangered megafauna, but that’s because I understand that there will be no more of those animals if they go extinct, which is a thing that happens.

    I wish the matter weren’t politicized and that objective scientists would explain their findings honestly to the masses. If pollution caused global climate change is happening, this sounds like a potentially disturbing problem.
    , @Desiderius

    the predictions are coming true. Others on the left believe it because they are told to believe it, and many on the right disbelieve it because they are told not to believe it.
     
    And many on the right and not on the right, including many who write with greater intelligence and lucidity than you or I, are rightfully skeptical because many predictions have not in fact come true.

    That you are unaware of this fact is grossly negligent on your part. Again, when real existential threats come along, people don't content themselves with only getting one side of the story, and a blinkered side at that.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    I have read scientific papers on global warming for over 30 years and even done a small amount of research in the field. I believe it because the science makes sense to me and the predictions are coming true.
     
    Oh do tell, do tell.

    Give us the predictions for the average global temperature for each year for the next decade, and we will spot you plus or minus five percent. Your patron saint, St. Al Gore of the Invention of the Internet (tm), has proven to be a false prophet. Shall I list other failed prophets of your ilk that share your penchant for a glorious Soviet future?

    Build the models, and show them to us, because if you know the statistically significant independent variables, the response will be an accurate prediction.

    If not, do not presume to tell us that we must give you trillions of dollars, and revert to a stone age standard of living, so that you can give us another cohort of murdered innocents in a Don Quixote campaign of "social justice".

    The greatest of all crimes against humanity is socialism. The Leftist thirst for the blood of the innocent will never be sated. Leftist sadism is the ultimate hedonism, the conceit of the intelligentsia, the service of vice pretending to be virtue.
  32. @Bill P
    The reason the Chinese cornered the market on renewables is that they anticipated soaking up all the tax spoils from stupid ideas like the Paris Climate Accord and the "Green New Deal." In the meanwhile, Chinese are burning the dirtiest, cheapest fuel they can buy. They actually buy petcoke from us to burn in power plants. In case you don't know, that's the toxic slag left over from refining petroleum.

    And the air in China is toxic.

    The cost of renewable energy goes down sort of like Moore’s Law only a little slower. So when the Chinese corner the market, at some point it is cheaper to use Chinese windmills and solar panels than non-renewable energy clean enough for US standards. At that point we are dependent on the Chinese. And that time is not very far away in the grand scheme of things. I still consider that possibility a national security threat. Just as Carter came up with the idea is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a national security issue, a true Green New Deal would recognize US dependence on Chinese technology as a national security issue.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    Wind and solar are pre-industrial power sources, which perhaps explains the attraction to true believers. If we really had a carbon pollution problem - and people in the know really believed it - we'd be cutting through red tape and building reactors all over the country. There's plenty of nuclear fuel out there, including in seawater.

    But the truth is that even our politicians who pay lip service to AGW are actually quite content to burn cheap natural gas into the foreseeable future. They don't even take it seriously -- they just think it's a convenient way to scare people into paying higher taxes.
  33. @Paleo Liberal
    Simple.

    Very few people are really logical.

    There were a few politicians in the old days, such as Gaylord Nelson and Dick Lamm, who were true environmentalists and saw the dangers of mass immigration to our ecology. What happened to them?

    Nelson was voted out of the Senate in 1980 in the Reagan election. Lamm served 3 terms as governor but lost the senate primary to Ben Nighthorse Campbell in 1992. They both went on to lead what was left of the lower population ecology movement, and were pushed to the side by the big bucks of the open borders movement.

    People believe what they are told to believe. I have read scientific papers on global warming for over 30 years and even done a small amount of research in the field. I believe it because the science makes sense to me and the predictions are coming true. Others on the left believe it because they are told to believe it, and many on the right disbelieve it because they are told not to believe it.

    People on the left are told they can be environmentally conscious and still be in favor of open borders, so they believe it. Many just want to be on the other side of Trump on every issue wrong or right.

    I discovered the hard way many years ago that when people make up their minds, they don’t let mere facts sway them.

    I like Steve because although he and I are on different sides of the political spectrum, we sometimes agree because the facts point us that way.

    I don’t really understand climate science so I have little opinion on the matter. Generally I support conservation efforts for endangered megafauna, but that’s because I understand that there will be no more of those animals if they go extinct, which is a thing that happens.

    I wish the matter weren’t politicized and that objective scientists would explain their findings honestly to the masses. If pollution caused global climate change is happening, this sounds like a potentially disturbing problem.

  34. stuff like this, observed over a lifetime, is one of the reasons i’m not convinced barack obama’s comment about visiting 57 states wasn’t simply the kind of verbal mistake anybody who talks for a living will eventually make after talking for months and months in public. i’d say there’s an above zero percent chance he really didn’t know how many states there were exactly. and why would he, since the united states is something he hated, wanted to destroy, and was only interested in learning enough to effectively attack it, and he wasn’t a mainlander, nor a core american to begin with. i’m sure he was corrected within minutes by his staff, if in fact he wasn’t sure, but that’s a verbal slip up that NO candidate for president has ever said before.

    is that going too far? does such a claim send me straight into loon territory? of course obama knew how many states there are, you deranged far right nutjob.

    oh yeah?

    then how do people explain that tweet from harvard constitutional law professor laurence tribe? there’s no possible way to explain that, other than the guy kinda doesn’t know what he’s talking about in the field he purports to be a tenured professor in. how could an expert possibly make a mistake that basic?

    it’s sometimes surprising how inaccurate or wrong leftists are on things you would imagine everybody would know. i’ll repeat the story about joe biden advising people to stay away from the AR-15, and instead, buy a shotgun, and go outside and fire a warning shot into the air, in the event of trouble. that’s illegal in most states, and the vice president just advised citizens to do something against the law. you would think a lawyer who is a vice president might know that, but they often turn out to know very little about the thing they claim as their profession.

    leftist media, of course, never lets republicans get away with even honest mistakes or slip ups on stuff that doesn’t even matter, calling them morons, idiots, and retards at will.

  35. @Bill P
    The reason the Chinese cornered the market on renewables is that they anticipated soaking up all the tax spoils from stupid ideas like the Paris Climate Accord and the "Green New Deal." In the meanwhile, Chinese are burning the dirtiest, cheapest fuel they can buy. They actually buy petcoke from us to burn in power plants. In case you don't know, that's the toxic slag left over from refining petroleum.

    To the extent the Chinese want to dump below-cost solar panels in our market we should let them. It’s basically a form of foreign aid to us that also helps the environment.

    During the Obama administration, however, they put up protective tariffs against imported solar panels. This showed that they really didn’t care about increasing solar power but only subsidizing crony “green” business intetests.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    One of the many empty promises that Obama made in his 2008 campaign was that the manufacturing jobs lost in America would be replaced by new "green" jobs, with our factories making solar panels and windmills. At the time I wondered why he thought it would be us manufacturing those things rather than the Chinese, who make nearly everything else.
  36. Anon[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @Barnard
    I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not the people who have proposed solutions to fix it.

    I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not the people who have proposed solutions to fix it.

    There is probably some clever variation of Salena Zito’s “The press takes Trump literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally” that could be constructed in relation to climate change.

  37. Satellite data indicates no global warming over the last twenty years, despite rising CO2 levels.

    The lack of warming is why they use the term “climate change” to perpetuate the hoax to keep the money flowing and use climate change as excuse to increase taxes and expand the elites power over the world.

    Global warming would actually be a net benefit to humanity. Humans thrive during the warmer periods , crops grow better and land available for farming increases.

    The sun cycles have a much bigger impact on our climate than CO2 , a trace gas which in the past was much higher than today. Ice ages have started when CO2 levels were 10 times as high as the current level of 415 parts per million.
    Clamato change is governed by hundreds of factors unrelated to CO2. There is little to no correlation between the Earths temperature and CO2.

  38. @Hypnotoad666
    To the extent the Chinese want to dump below-cost solar panels in our market we should let them. It's basically a form of foreign aid to us that also helps the environment.

    During the Obama administration, however, they put up protective tariffs against imported solar panels. This showed that they really didn't care about increasing solar power but only subsidizing crony "green" business intetests.

    One of the many empty promises that Obama made in his 2008 campaign was that the manufacturing jobs lost in America would be replaced by new “green” jobs, with our factories making solar panels and windmills. At the time I wondered why he thought it would be us manufacturing those things rather than the Chinese, who make nearly everything else.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    At the time I wondered why he thought it would be us manufacturing those things rather than the Chinese, who make nearly everything else.
     
    Everything else except, well, china:


    http://www.laurelhollowpark.net/hlc/marks/eee.JPG

  39. @Arclight
    If you care about climate change, shouldn't you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?

    If you care about climate change, shouldn’t you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?

    Also, a high standard of living is more energy intensive in a cold climate where you need central heating to live comfortably and cycling is impossible during the winter.

    • Replies: @DRA
    I've lived in downstate IL, SA TX, Phoenix AZ and the Twin Cities, MN. There are more folks 'cycling into downtown MNSP and ST Paul in the winter than into any of the other listed cities at any time of year. It's easier to put on enough cloths to keep warm while bicycling than to take off enough to keep cool in the other cities,
  40. @Paleo Liberal
    Simple.

    Very few people are really logical.

    There were a few politicians in the old days, such as Gaylord Nelson and Dick Lamm, who were true environmentalists and saw the dangers of mass immigration to our ecology. What happened to them?

    Nelson was voted out of the Senate in 1980 in the Reagan election. Lamm served 3 terms as governor but lost the senate primary to Ben Nighthorse Campbell in 1992. They both went on to lead what was left of the lower population ecology movement, and were pushed to the side by the big bucks of the open borders movement.

    People believe what they are told to believe. I have read scientific papers on global warming for over 30 years and even done a small amount of research in the field. I believe it because the science makes sense to me and the predictions are coming true. Others on the left believe it because they are told to believe it, and many on the right disbelieve it because they are told not to believe it.

    People on the left are told they can be environmentally conscious and still be in favor of open borders, so they believe it. Many just want to be on the other side of Trump on every issue wrong or right.

    I discovered the hard way many years ago that when people make up their minds, they don’t let mere facts sway them.

    I like Steve because although he and I are on different sides of the political spectrum, we sometimes agree because the facts point us that way.

    the predictions are coming true. Others on the left believe it because they are told to believe it, and many on the right disbelieve it because they are told not to believe it.

    And many on the right and not on the right, including many who write with greater intelligence and lucidity than you or I, are rightfully skeptical because many predictions have not in fact come true.

    That you are unaware of this fact is grossly negligent on your part. Again, when real existential threats come along, people don’t content themselves with only getting one side of the story, and a blinkered side at that.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  41. @Paleo Liberal
    And the air in China is toxic.

    The cost of renewable energy goes down sort of like Moore’s Law only a little slower. So when the Chinese corner the market, at some point it is cheaper to use Chinese windmills and solar panels than non-renewable energy clean enough for US standards. At that point we are dependent on the Chinese. And that time is not very far away in the grand scheme of things. I still consider that possibility a national security threat. Just as Carter came up with the idea is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a national security issue, a true Green New Deal would recognize US dependence on Chinese technology as a national security issue.

    Wind and solar are pre-industrial power sources, which perhaps explains the attraction to true believers. If we really had a carbon pollution problem – and people in the know really believed it – we’d be cutting through red tape and building reactors all over the country. There’s plenty of nuclear fuel out there, including in seawater.

    But the truth is that even our politicians who pay lip service to AGW are actually quite content to burn cheap natural gas into the foreseeable future. They don’t even take it seriously — they just think it’s a convenient way to scare people into paying higher taxes.

    • Agree: Prodigal son, Cortes
    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    Pro-nukes are the most evil persons in the entire world. May they rot in hell.
  42. @Bill P
    The reason the Chinese cornered the market on renewables is that they anticipated soaking up all the tax spoils from stupid ideas like the Paris Climate Accord and the "Green New Deal." In the meanwhile, Chinese are burning the dirtiest, cheapest fuel they can buy. They actually buy petcoke from us to burn in power plants. In case you don't know, that's the toxic slag left over from refining petroleum.

    God put us on this planet to mine the carbon the brain-dead dinos managed to bury deep beneath the crust, and free it to the atmosphere to sustain life for the rest of His creatures. The dinos failed Him, but we must not. We have but one job….

  43. I take the idea of Global Warming seriously

    How can you when it no longer exists? It’s now “climate change” because none of their doomsday scenarios have come to pass, and they need a new term, stat!, and one sufficiently nebulous to back their assertion any day that’s not 70 degrees and sunny is the result of “man’s addiction to fossil fuels!”

    An addiction, by the way, that despite their vociferous proclamations, they have no intention of abandoning any time soon. You lot should have given it up yesterday, you bunch of petro-fascists.

    • Agree: Prodigal son
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    AGREED (and with Bill P. (#38, as of now))

    As the Instapundit was always fond of writing: "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis act like it's a crisis". I hope I got Prof. Reynold's wording correct.
  44. @Harry Baldwin
    One of the many empty promises that Obama made in his 2008 campaign was that the manufacturing jobs lost in America would be replaced by new "green" jobs, with our factories making solar panels and windmills. At the time I wondered why he thought it would be us manufacturing those things rather than the Chinese, who make nearly everything else.

    At the time I wondered why he thought it would be us manufacturing those things rather than the Chinese, who make nearly everything else.

    Everything else except, well, china:

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    My wife's Noritake (Japanese) porcelain 'chinaware' is made in Indonesia.

    Why don't we hear more about Indonesia? Isn't their population exploding?
    , @Redneck farmer
    As one who lives in the Ohio Valley, Reg, I hate to break it to you but that's about the only American-Made pottery in existence. Most of the rest went out of business starting in the late 60s.
    There was an effort to restart a plant to produce mugs for Starbucks a few years ago. The factory shut down less than 2 years of operations. Quality control problems, and they couldn't find a ceramics engineer to fix the problem. America doesn't produce any consumer ceramics engineers anymore.
  45. @Paleo Liberal
    Simple.

    Very few people are really logical.

    There were a few politicians in the old days, such as Gaylord Nelson and Dick Lamm, who were true environmentalists and saw the dangers of mass immigration to our ecology. What happened to them?

    Nelson was voted out of the Senate in 1980 in the Reagan election. Lamm served 3 terms as governor but lost the senate primary to Ben Nighthorse Campbell in 1992. They both went on to lead what was left of the lower population ecology movement, and were pushed to the side by the big bucks of the open borders movement.

    People believe what they are told to believe. I have read scientific papers on global warming for over 30 years and even done a small amount of research in the field. I believe it because the science makes sense to me and the predictions are coming true. Others on the left believe it because they are told to believe it, and many on the right disbelieve it because they are told not to believe it.

    People on the left are told they can be environmentally conscious and still be in favor of open borders, so they believe it. Many just want to be on the other side of Trump on every issue wrong or right.

    I discovered the hard way many years ago that when people make up their minds, they don’t let mere facts sway them.

    I like Steve because although he and I are on different sides of the political spectrum, we sometimes agree because the facts point us that way.

    I have read scientific papers on global warming for over 30 years and even done a small amount of research in the field. I believe it because the science makes sense to me and the predictions are coming true.

    Oh do tell, do tell.

    Give us the predictions for the average global temperature for each year for the next decade, and we will spot you plus or minus five percent. Your patron saint, St. Al Gore of the Invention of the Internet ™, has proven to be a false prophet. Shall I list other failed prophets of your ilk that share your penchant for a glorious Soviet future?

    Build the models, and show them to us, because if you know the statistically significant independent variables, the response will be an accurate prediction.

    If not, do not presume to tell us that we must give you trillions of dollars, and revert to a stone age standard of living, so that you can give us another cohort of murdered innocents in a Don Quixote campaign of “social justice”.

    The greatest of all crimes against humanity is socialism. The Leftist thirst for the blood of the innocent will never be sated. Leftist sadism is the ultimate hedonism, the conceit of the intelligentsia, the service of vice pretending to be virtue.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I really didn't want to chime in on this thread, because it'll become a time-waster for me. However, after just using up my [AGREE] a few minutes ago, However, I have to thank you, Charles, for this best comment so far of the thread. That's exactly it - There IS no working model of the world's climate.

    Peak Stupidity's layman's explanation: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Summary - Part 1, and Summary - Part 2.

    This does not negate the main sentiment of Steve's post, that all environmental problems are increased with larger populations, and that the immigration-invasion proponents have squashed all talk about that. Oh, yeah, and that reporters suck at numbers (maybe the guy was just a Carl Sagan fan?)
  46. @Desiderius
    Steve, you've got enough sacred cows on your case already, but if Climate Change we're the thing it is claimed to be, it wouldn't be left up to the SJW types to promote awareness.

    The silence of the competent speaks volumes.

    if Climate Change we’re the thing it is claimed to be, it wouldn’t be left up to the SJW types to promote awareness.

    So the hundreds of scientists–including virtually all the leaders in the relevant fields–as formal signatories to declarations mean nothing to you?

    Are you ever right about anything?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    (Thankfully) scientific truth isn’t determined by democratic vote, let alone corrupt plutocratic coercion.

    But you do you.
  47. @Paleo Liberal
    Which people?

    I saw an article in Science Magazine in January by the fellow who coined the term “Green New Deal”.

    He explained what he meant by it. He made a ton of sense. And his Green New Deal is absolutely nothing like the Jill Stein / AOC “Green New Deal”.

    His proposal was to stop giving tax breaks for “Brown” energy, such as coal and oil, and use the money for “Green” energy instead. He pointed out, correctly, that the Chinese are getting a tremendous head start on us in renewable energy, to the point where we have to import from China. IMO, us being dependent on the Chinese for our energy is a national security nightmare.

    He also said a real Green New Deal should not bankrupt the nation.

    The problem with the so-called GND of Stein and AOC is it is not a real Green New Deal. Some parts of it are great. Some are not very well thought out. Some parts fall flat on their face. We cannot guarantee jobs for everyone and have open borders. We can not eliminate gas cars in 12 years when cars last 20 years and electric technology is not ripe. If you have $75,000 to spare you can get a nice SUV with a range of over 200 miles, but you have to charge it overnight.

    I want a REAL Green New Deal. Not the Stein / Ocasio Red-Green Hodgepodge.

    Sorry to say this. I am not a socialist, but I come a lot closer to being a socialist than other posters here. I realize that demanding even a mild form a socialism along with a Green New Deal is a poison pill. We need conservative conservationists. We need duck hunters and fishermen and snowmobilers on the same side as the hippy dippy tree huggers. I would love to see Medicare for All. But that is NOT a precondition for preserving our planet. It is a very different battle.

    I would love to see jobs for all Americans. But jobs for all plus open borders is a recipe for environmental disaster. “Abolish ICE” is not Green. It is fashionable pseudo socialist. Not even real socialism.

    Maybe I am just a grumpy old man.

    I would love to see jobs for all Americans. But jobs for all plus open borders is a recipe for environmental disaster. “Abolish ICE” is not Green.

    Funny you should mention, because the #1 story in the NYT tonight is all about abolishing prisons as an idea whose time has come. To go along with open borders, no prisons! Then we have guaranteed income for everyone. Free medical care, free housing! Genius! Why didn’t we think of all these good things before? Racism is my guess.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/magazine/prison-abolition-ruth-wilson-gilmore.html

  48. @Reg Cæsar

    At the time I wondered why he thought it would be us manufacturing those things rather than the Chinese, who make nearly everything else.
     
    Everything else except, well, china:


    http://www.laurelhollowpark.net/hlc/marks/eee.JPG

    My wife’s Noritake (Japanese) porcelain ‘chinaware’ is made in Indonesia.

    Why don’t we hear more about Indonesia? Isn’t their population exploding?

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Mr. Mc, Exploing population could be a solution to over population. Work on that, ok?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    My wife’s Noritake (Japanese) porcelain ‘chinaware’ is made in Indonesia.
     
    Well, then, it's not made in China, is it?

    I suspect it's done by Malay drones under ethnic Chinese oversight, CMIIW.
  49. “Along with losing water that billions of people drink, the crops they grow and the energy they need, the great melting of North America’s glaciers will affect ecosystems and the creatures within them, like the salmon that spawn in meltwater streams.”

    Glaciers melting in the fields. Doing the work that North Americans refuse to do.

  50. @Paleo Liberal
    Which people?

    I saw an article in Science Magazine in January by the fellow who coined the term “Green New Deal”.

    He explained what he meant by it. He made a ton of sense. And his Green New Deal is absolutely nothing like the Jill Stein / AOC “Green New Deal”.

    His proposal was to stop giving tax breaks for “Brown” energy, such as coal and oil, and use the money for “Green” energy instead. He pointed out, correctly, that the Chinese are getting a tremendous head start on us in renewable energy, to the point where we have to import from China. IMO, us being dependent on the Chinese for our energy is a national security nightmare.

    He also said a real Green New Deal should not bankrupt the nation.

    The problem with the so-called GND of Stein and AOC is it is not a real Green New Deal. Some parts of it are great. Some are not very well thought out. Some parts fall flat on their face. We cannot guarantee jobs for everyone and have open borders. We can not eliminate gas cars in 12 years when cars last 20 years and electric technology is not ripe. If you have $75,000 to spare you can get a nice SUV with a range of over 200 miles, but you have to charge it overnight.

    I want a REAL Green New Deal. Not the Stein / Ocasio Red-Green Hodgepodge.

    Sorry to say this. I am not a socialist, but I come a lot closer to being a socialist than other posters here. I realize that demanding even a mild form a socialism along with a Green New Deal is a poison pill. We need conservative conservationists. We need duck hunters and fishermen and snowmobilers on the same side as the hippy dippy tree huggers. I would love to see Medicare for All. But that is NOT a precondition for preserving our planet. It is a very different battle.

    I would love to see jobs for all Americans. But jobs for all plus open borders is a recipe for environmental disaster. “Abolish ICE” is not Green. It is fashionable pseudo socialist. Not even real socialism.

    Maybe I am just a grumpy old man.

    Green energy is mostly a sham and Chinese implementation of it is a sham.

    You can’t produce steel, run tankers, create artificial fertilizers, fly airplanes, etc. with renewable energy. Furthermore most of the so-called renewables used today are old technology, like wood, charcoal, straw, hydroelectric energy etc. Back in the day we used old renewables as a much greater share of our total energy. The result of which was massive deforestation and near extinction for many species of whales. Nowadays North America and Europe are reforesting and the whales are recovering thanks to fossil fuels. Even hydroelectric dams are not particularly good for the environment. They have been catastrophic for eels and lampreys in many areas for example.

    Solar and wind use are trivial. If you look at historic energy transitions, they take many decades, and renewables are going to be even slower. In the current day it actually takes decades just for global fossil fuel usage as a percentage of total energy to go down 1%. Solar and wind both really only work in certain areas of the world, they have to be turned off during seasons when natural disasters are a threat, their output is unpredictable and low, and they’re not particularly robust. Wind power has the extra negative that it is unpleasant to live around, and is bad for birds and bats.

    Even worse many idiots are recommending biofuels, which are a massive cause of deforestation, drive up food prices, and are a disaster for the environment. Export of them are good for some third world countries however, which also means they are bad for the environment.

    As for electric cars, they’re not going to make a big difference in the end. The amount of energy it takes to produce new cars and the fact that Americans in particular continue to want bigger cars and more powerful engines means the efficiency gains will be minor. The impact on the grid of having large numbers of people charging their vehicle overnight is probably going to mean more plants will have to be open at late hours. It may even be a net energy loss.

    Green energy is a bad idea. Solar panels are a niche application only and we should ban all new windmills. The U.S. + Canada are practically energy independent already, and that’s with shutting down some coal mines and offshoring which we can reopen in the future. China cornering the renewables market is no national security threat, it’s just a bad investment for the Chinese(in particular since there’s little use domestically for it). Environmentalists of the current day probably are a national security threat however.

    • Agree: Bubba, Travis
    • Replies: @Old Prude
    Just so. Try heating your house with a windmill.
    , @Redneck farmer
    Jet aircraft can use biofuels. WTE (waste to energy) is the most PC. Caratina is a plant that can be grown as a cover crop in the Southeast and a rotation crop in the upper Plains and Canada. It's also relatively inexpensive as renewables go, since it just requires cracking the oil molecules in half to get drop-in jet fuel.
    , @bc
    Thanks. It's encouraging to read a comment by someone who can recognize the consequences of bumper sticker solutions.
    , @jill
    Nothing as efficient as a 80 year old coal plant.
    , @obwandiyag
    Where'd you get these talking points? Exxon?

    Everything you say is wrong. You cherry pick things to pick on. You never mention efficiency/conservation. You are a sophomoron.
  51. Anon[350] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s amazing how many different “opinions” you get when you search Google Images for a map of North American watersheds. I guess my understanding of watershed is not accurate. I thought that a watershed was the contiguous area in which, anywhere within it, if you emptied your canteen on the ground, the water would exit to the sea through a particular river’s mouth. Many of the maps however show landbound watersheds. Does the water drain into a cave, never to be seen again? Maybe they break up huge watersheds into sections based on river tributaries?

    At any rate, here is one:

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    From California to Utah, there are a lot of closed watersheds with a salt lake at the bottom, such as the Great Salt Lake in Utah and the Salton Sea in California. The River Jordan in the Holy Land is a famous one that drains into the Dead Sea.
    , @Almost Missouri
    I too have wondered about this question for a while, and also came to the conclusion that modern map makers are dimmer and lazier than their forebearers.

    A map of US watersheds should show:

    • A series of smallish but historically significant watersheds along the East and Southeast (Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, Susquehanna-Chesapeake, Savannah, Chattahoochee-Apalachicola etc.), usually with a significant city at their fall line (Hartford, Albany, Trenton, Harrisburg or Harve de Grace, Augusta, Columbus, etc.)

    • The enormous Mississippi watershed of the Great Plains.

    • The Great Lakes/St. Lawrence watershed draining the upper Midwest and northern Northeast.

    • The Great Basin (basically Nevada and Utah).

    • The Colorado draining/irrigating the Southwest, which no longer reaches the sea (somehow the environmental-immigration activists aren't troubled by the main source of freshwater for the entire Southwest being used above 100% capacity).

    • The Columbia draining the Northwest.

    • The American-San Joaquin draining central California into the SF Bay.

    But somehow among all the useless maps made today, I've never found such a map. Worse, there are all sorts of misleading maps instead.
    , @anonymous
    What you are calling "landbound" watersheds are endorheic basins - regions where water drains to an inland sea or simply evaporates directly, never making it to an ocean. The Great Basin in Utah/Nevada is the major one in North America. In Eastern Europe and Western Asia an even larger region drains to the Caspian Sea and doesn't make it out.
  52. The Mississippi above St. Louis is entirely non-glacier fed

    Much of that is the Driftless, which got its name from the fact that no glaciers passed that way.

    It’s also where water skiing was invented.

  53. @Anon
    It's amazing how many different "opinions" you get when you search Google Images for a map of North American watersheds. I guess my understanding of watershed is not accurate. I thought that a watershed was the contiguous area in which, anywhere within it, if you emptied your canteen on the ground, the water would exit to the sea through a particular river's mouth. Many of the maps however show landbound watersheds. Does the water drain into a cave, never to be seen again? Maybe they break up huge watersheds into sections based on river tributaries?

    At any rate, here is one:

    https://external-preview.redd.it/_tQzZDZGOMdTucw_vGcUXaWYeqvrc5dpcl07RcZWM-Y.png?auto=webp&s=1c37f0f37607539aebbb8ecef1145912a4d869cd

    From California to Utah, there are a lot of closed watersheds with a salt lake at the bottom, such as the Great Salt Lake in Utah and the Salton Sea in California. The River Jordan in the Holy Land is a famous one that drains into the Dead Sea.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I remember visiting the Salton Sea in the 1980's, the poor man's Lake Tahoe. Talk about your desolation. It was all just a mistake too.

    The rivers leading into lots of these places show as dashed blue lines on the Rand-McNalley maps, to show they don't flow all year.
  54. @EldnahYm
    Green energy is mostly a sham and Chinese implementation of it is a sham.

    You can't produce steel, run tankers, create artificial fertilizers, fly airplanes, etc. with renewable energy. Furthermore most of the so-called renewables used today are old technology, like wood, charcoal, straw, hydroelectric energy etc. Back in the day we used old renewables as a much greater share of our total energy. The result of which was massive deforestation and near extinction for many species of whales. Nowadays North America and Europe are reforesting and the whales are recovering thanks to fossil fuels. Even hydroelectric dams are not particularly good for the environment. They have been catastrophic for eels and lampreys in many areas for example.

    Solar and wind use are trivial. If you look at historic energy transitions, they take many decades, and renewables are going to be even slower. In the current day it actually takes decades just for global fossil fuel usage as a percentage of total energy to go down 1%. Solar and wind both really only work in certain areas of the world, they have to be turned off during seasons when natural disasters are a threat, their output is unpredictable and low, and they're not particularly robust. Wind power has the extra negative that it is unpleasant to live around, and is bad for birds and bats.

    Even worse many idiots are recommending biofuels, which are a massive cause of deforestation, drive up food prices, and are a disaster for the environment. Export of them are good for some third world countries however, which also means they are bad for the environment.

    As for electric cars, they're not going to make a big difference in the end. The amount of energy it takes to produce new cars and the fact that Americans in particular continue to want bigger cars and more powerful engines means the efficiency gains will be minor. The impact on the grid of having large numbers of people charging their vehicle overnight is probably going to mean more plants will have to be open at late hours. It may even be a net energy loss.

    Green energy is a bad idea. Solar panels are a niche application only and we should ban all new windmills. The U.S. + Canada are practically energy independent already, and that's with shutting down some coal mines and offshoring which we can reopen in the future. China cornering the renewables market is no national security threat, it's just a bad investment for the Chinese(in particular since there's little use domestically for it). Environmentalists of the current day probably are a national security threat however.

    Just so. Try heating your house with a windmill.

  55. Won’t there me MORE water in the streams and rivers fed by this glacier, as (1) it is melting and (2) less of the rain which falls on that high ground will remain as snow and ice.

  56. @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    I have read scientific papers on global warming for over 30 years and even done a small amount of research in the field. I believe it because the science makes sense to me and the predictions are coming true.
     
    Oh do tell, do tell.

    Give us the predictions for the average global temperature for each year for the next decade, and we will spot you plus or minus five percent. Your patron saint, St. Al Gore of the Invention of the Internet (tm), has proven to be a false prophet. Shall I list other failed prophets of your ilk that share your penchant for a glorious Soviet future?

    Build the models, and show them to us, because if you know the statistically significant independent variables, the response will be an accurate prediction.

    If not, do not presume to tell us that we must give you trillions of dollars, and revert to a stone age standard of living, so that you can give us another cohort of murdered innocents in a Don Quixote campaign of "social justice".

    The greatest of all crimes against humanity is socialism. The Leftist thirst for the blood of the innocent will never be sated. Leftist sadism is the ultimate hedonism, the conceit of the intelligentsia, the service of vice pretending to be virtue.

    I really didn’t want to chime in on this thread, because it’ll become a time-waster for me. However, after just using up my [AGREE] a few minutes ago, However, I have to thank you, Charles, for this best comment so far of the thread. That’s exactly it – There IS no working model of the world’s climate.

    Peak Stupidity’s layman’s explanation: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Summary – Part 1, and Summary – Part 2.

    This does not negate the main sentiment of Steve’s post, that all environmental problems are increased with larger populations, and that the immigration-invasion proponents have squashed all talk about that. Oh, yeah, and that reporters suck at numbers (maybe the guy was just a Carl Sagan fan?)

  57. @Steve Sailer
    From California to Utah, there are a lot of closed watersheds with a salt lake at the bottom, such as the Great Salt Lake in Utah and the Salton Sea in California. The River Jordan in the Holy Land is a famous one that drains into the Dead Sea.

    I remember visiting the Salton Sea in the 1980’s, the poor man’s Lake Tahoe. Talk about your desolation. It was all just a mistake too.

    The rivers leading into lots of these places show as dashed blue lines on the Rand-McNalley maps, to show they don’t flow all year.

  58. @Oleaginous Outrager

    I take the idea of Global Warming seriously
     
    How can you when it no longer exists? It's now "climate change" because none of their doomsday scenarios have come to pass, and they need a new term, stat!, and one sufficiently nebulous to back their assertion any day that's not 70 degrees and sunny is the result of "man's addiction to fossil fuels!"

    An addiction, by the way, that despite their vociferous proclamations, they have no intention of abandoning any time soon. You lot should have given it up yesterday, you bunch of petro-fascists.

    AGREED (and with Bill P. (#38, as of now))

    As the Instapundit was always fond of writing: “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people telling me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis”. I hope I got Prof. Reynold’s wording correct.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  59. @Old Yeller
    California is essentially desert scrub. It also supplies a significant area of prime farmland. A nation's national security is directly tied to its ability to feed itself, sans imports.

    Just two reasons that California is the worst choice to declare as a Sanctuary State in the entire Union.

    The reptilian Sierra Club, the wildly corrupt GreenPeace, and other environmentalist organizations that support politicians who advocate for California as a Sanctuary State are de facto anti-environmental extremist groups, and should be addressed as such.

    They are California’s equivalent to the Bolsheviks, and should be politically and financially undermined, and otherwise actively opposed at every single opportunity.

    These organizations are evil, and are actively accelerating the decay of the state of California.

    California is not “essentially desert scrub.” It is only about 12% desert. And there are 12 mountain ranges in California. Ever heard of the Sierra Nevadas, the Cascades, and the San Gabriels, to name just three? Turn off the TV and do some reading. PBS is not an educational resource. (By the way, the south end of the Cascades is in Northern California. Ever heard of Mount Shasta? People like you amaze me with their TV-based idiocy.)

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    Say what? Yes, it's been a wet winter here this year, but Old Yeller speaks much truth. In my area of Northern CA, we have "scrub oaks" and "scrub brush" everywhere. It's a handy way to describe flora and fauna that can survive during long droughts, including the 6 months each year when it doesn't rain.

    The reason CA is so fertile and productive is the water planning of our forefathers who built the dams and reservoirs and canals and levies and pumps... environmentalists, in their purest forms, would tear all that apart in seconds.
    , @Old Yeller

    California is not “essentially desert scrub.” It is only about 12% desert. And there are 12 mountain ranges in California. Ever heard of the Sierra Nevadas, the Cascades, and the San Gabriels, to name just three? Turn off the TV and do some reading.
     
    California is at least 25 % desert. You got mixed up with your google search, and mistook the percentage of desert in the United States with the percentage of desert land in California. I don’t really need to read about the deconstruction and chaos of California since Mexico began its sleazy land grab. I’m living it. I would also include "high deserts" under the same nomenclature, which only further supports my claim that water resources are limited for America's bread basket, and we better pay attention to, and severely restrict immigrant dumping here.

    So, crawl back in the hole your parents let you reside in, and give up giving lessons to your betters. You’re too lazy to make your own bed in the morning, much less commit to any research on anything more important than your cherished double-stuffed Oreo's, and the pizza crusts hidden under your discount mattress.
  60. Steve,

    I first learned about global warming from my great-grandmother back in the ’60s based on her own life experiences.

    There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    And, as a physics student and later a Ph.D. physicist, I have been following the global-climate modelling efforts for nearly fifty years.

    Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    But, exactly what fraction of global warming is due to human action and what fraction to natural causes (the Little Ice Age was presumably not caused by human action)? That is a very hard question scientifically, and the answer is highly uncertain.

    And, even worse, what will the future of global climate be? Even harder to answer scientifically: as the saying has it, “Prediction is hard, especially of the future!”

    Anyone who wants to pursue this in more detail with someone who knows incredibly more about the subject than I should check out Judith Curry’s Climate, Etc. blog. Judith is former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, and, I am happy to say, more or less agrees with my conclusions stated above.

    • LOL: TWS
    • Replies: @bc
    Professor Curry is an excellent source of informed commentary on this issue. I wonder why journalists who normally provide the usual blather and ballyhoo about any woman who comes within shouting distance of STEM don't mention her more often.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    Yes. Cities are hotter than farmland, which is hotter than forest.

    Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    So we are told, but like somebody mentioned up thread, nobody acts like CO2 is the actual problem. If it were a problem, like lead in paint or heavy metals showing up in raptors, then we'd solve it. We'd ban SUV's and limit trans-oceanic transport. We'd build nuclear reactors, and we'd spread people out instead of concentrating them in megalopolises.

    The experts in the field aren't acting like CO2-global warming is the problem. Instead, their actions belie incentives aligned with CO2-global warming being the solution in search of the problem.

    , @peterike
    PhysicistDave and Jack D should get a room. Then they can work out who is the most tiresomely pompous and self-important.
    , @Desiderius
    Given the other gross environmental damage of runaway globalism, it is prudent to be biased on the side of those advocating the human piece. That said, that piece could still turn out to be infinitesimally small relative to other factors (solar cycles, et al).

    The other concern is Climate Change sucking all the air out of the Environmentalism room like Identity Politics does to traditional Leftish issues.

    , @obwandiyag
    The little ice age was caused by the massive die-off of 10s of millions of American Indians. Sorry.
    , @James Speaks
    This subject tends to generate a lot of heat (u intentional pun) and very little light. There are a few things we know for certain and a couple of others that we can assume.

    CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas and it was historically below 300 ppm. Last time I checked, it had risen to about 410 ppm.

    The effect of doubling CO2 is pretty well established, though it could take a long time for the earth system to reach equilibrium.

    Oceans store heat and this creates a lag in average land temps.

    Warmer average temperatures change global circulation patterns. Hadley cells move further north (and south in the southern hemisphere) and expand. Thus, larger swath of desert.

    Higher average air temps cause higher soil temps cause decrease in soil moisture causes decrease in crop yields causes famine causes more people to move north.

    Different factors caused climate changes in the past, but none as rapidly as the current CO2 forcing.

    Computer models are complex; they are getting better. Consistently, actual measurements show that predicted changes occur more rapidly than models predict.

    The details of sea level rise include ocean currents and displacement of mass from Antarctic to everywhere causes greater sea level rise in North America than elsewhere. It only takes six inches or so to ruin many coastal cities as desirable places to live cause internal migration causes strife.

    The one billion souls threatened with extinction when glaciers fail to provide adequate water in summer live in SE Asia. Our problem is that at least three nations there have nukes.

    Changes in rainfall patterns turn the SE US into the SW, the SW completely arid, and extend the arid zone northward into the grain producing heartland of North America.

    There's more, a lot more. None of this happens on cue to disprove a denialist, which is good. The last thing I want to do is to convince a denialist that he/she/it is living on the edge of a precipice. But when the preponderance of information all suggest the same thing, and that is a radical change in the support structure of our civilization, then a prudent individual takes note.

    Belief has nothing to do with it. I believe in the law a gravity. I understand that if I drop a bowling ball on my foot, it will hurt.

    , @Travis
    Yet the earth was cooling from 1942-1979 , so it is strange your grandmother thought it was warming. This is why Global cooling was the concern in the 1970s.

    in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934 according to NASA.
    in 1999, James Hansen, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato of GISS published a paper, “GISS analysis of surface temperature change”, which included a graph of the US temperature record at that time. The drop in temperatures from the 1930s to the 1970s is absolutely clear.

    The paper commented:
    The U.S. temperature increased by about 0.8°C between the 1880s and the 1930s, but it then fell by about 0.7°C between 1940 and the 1970s and regained only about 0.3°C of this between the 1970s and the 1990s. The year 1998 was the warmest year of recent decades in the United States, but in general, U.S. temperatures have not recovered even to the level that existed in the 1930s. The warmest years on record for the United states were listed as 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1998. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/how-the-us-temperature-record-has-changed/

  61. @Reg Cæsar

    At the time I wondered why he thought it would be us manufacturing those things rather than the Chinese, who make nearly everything else.
     
    Everything else except, well, china:


    http://www.laurelhollowpark.net/hlc/marks/eee.JPG

    As one who lives in the Ohio Valley, Reg, I hate to break it to you but that’s about the only American-Made pottery in existence. Most of the rest went out of business starting in the late 60s.
    There was an effort to restart a plant to produce mugs for Starbucks a few years ago. The factory shut down less than 2 years of operations. Quality control problems, and they couldn’t find a ceramics engineer to fix the problem. America doesn’t produce any consumer ceramics engineers anymore.

  62. @EldnahYm
    Green energy is mostly a sham and Chinese implementation of it is a sham.

    You can't produce steel, run tankers, create artificial fertilizers, fly airplanes, etc. with renewable energy. Furthermore most of the so-called renewables used today are old technology, like wood, charcoal, straw, hydroelectric energy etc. Back in the day we used old renewables as a much greater share of our total energy. The result of which was massive deforestation and near extinction for many species of whales. Nowadays North America and Europe are reforesting and the whales are recovering thanks to fossil fuels. Even hydroelectric dams are not particularly good for the environment. They have been catastrophic for eels and lampreys in many areas for example.

    Solar and wind use are trivial. If you look at historic energy transitions, they take many decades, and renewables are going to be even slower. In the current day it actually takes decades just for global fossil fuel usage as a percentage of total energy to go down 1%. Solar and wind both really only work in certain areas of the world, they have to be turned off during seasons when natural disasters are a threat, their output is unpredictable and low, and they're not particularly robust. Wind power has the extra negative that it is unpleasant to live around, and is bad for birds and bats.

    Even worse many idiots are recommending biofuels, which are a massive cause of deforestation, drive up food prices, and are a disaster for the environment. Export of them are good for some third world countries however, which also means they are bad for the environment.

    As for electric cars, they're not going to make a big difference in the end. The amount of energy it takes to produce new cars and the fact that Americans in particular continue to want bigger cars and more powerful engines means the efficiency gains will be minor. The impact on the grid of having large numbers of people charging their vehicle overnight is probably going to mean more plants will have to be open at late hours. It may even be a net energy loss.

    Green energy is a bad idea. Solar panels are a niche application only and we should ban all new windmills. The U.S. + Canada are practically energy independent already, and that's with shutting down some coal mines and offshoring which we can reopen in the future. China cornering the renewables market is no national security threat, it's just a bad investment for the Chinese(in particular since there's little use domestically for it). Environmentalists of the current day probably are a national security threat however.

    Jet aircraft can use biofuels. WTE (waste to energy) is the most PC. Caratina is a plant that can be grown as a cover crop in the Southeast and a rotation crop in the upper Plains and Canada. It’s also relatively inexpensive as renewables go, since it just requires cracking the oil molecules in half to get drop-in jet fuel.

  63. @Arclight
    If you care about climate change, shouldn't you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?

    If you care about climate change, shouldn’t you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?

    From the NY Times, November 4, 1990:

    Needless to say, few Earth Firsters actually practice Deep Ecology. Not many have given up their cars or unplugged their word processors. Even Dave Foreman, wearing a Hawaiian shirt and chomping on a cheeseburger in a Ramada Inn in downtown Tucson, Ariz., his home city, looks every bit the middle-class American he admits to being. “Certainly I recognize the contradiction in flying all over the country to give speeches about not doing that sort of thing,” Foreman says casually between bites. “There are constantly contradictions.”

    Foreman isn’t sure how many human beings the earth could support in a society that gave equal rights to all creatures. But Arne Naess, a Norwegian philosopher who coined the term Deep Ecology, once suggested, in all seriousness, a target population for the globe of 100 million people.

    Such thinking has lead some Earth Firsters to view human beings as, in Foreman’s words, “a cancer on nature.” Indeed, Foreman goes so far as to argue that the United States ought to be closed to immigration. His reasoning is that an influx of people striving to live a middle-class life in America will deplete our resources faster than if they’d remained home in the third world.

    Foreman has also suggested that such human tragedies as the AIDS epidemic and African famines can be viewed as examples of nature healing itself. Rather than send foreign aid to Ethiopia, he once argued, “the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/04/magazine/if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-they-hear-it.html

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    LOL at the NY Times already 30 years ago:

    "target population for the globe of 100 million people", i.e., exterminate 98% of human life: yaaawn.
     
    But,

    "to argue that the United States ought to be closed to immigration" OMG! What kind of monster would "go so far"?!?!
     
    The NYT has been IYI for a long time.
  64. @J.Ross
    >takes global warming seriously
    >has posted zero plans to force the Chinese to stop industrializing or to monitor third world thirdworldliness
    This is the environmental equivalent of a new year's resolution.
    Sure GW is probably happening, but none of the proposals are anything but power grabs without any pretense of helping, and we should reject the phony moral tone coming from people worried about glaciers but silent about Islamism.
    Also not mattering: the overwhelming and time-resilient consensus of the vast majority of Americans regarding immigration.
    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2019/04/16/americans-never-supported-mass-immigration/

    Yes, GW and open borders are alike in that prime movers of both are rich and powerful persons whose true intentions are not discussed openly, and many supporters of both are either misguided (with good intentions) or subconsciously concerned with status seeking and being au courant.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  65. @The Alarmist
    Considering some of the receding glaciers have left uncovered evidence of earlier human activity, I take climate change seriously too; just not the cock and bull that it is solely a modern problem that can only be fixed by deindustrialising western civilisation. Consider this:

    "What fascinates scientists about the age of the finds is that they correspond to times when climate specialists have already calculated the Earth was going through an especially warm period, caused by fluctuations in the orbital pattern of the Earth in relation to the Sun.
    At these times, historians now speculate, the high mountain regions became accessible to humans.
     
    Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm

    good point. Humans thrived when the climate was warmer. Other factors effect our climate much more than CO2 levels, such as the cycles of the Sun..

    Glaciers have been shrinking for the past 20,000 years, thus the continued trend of slowly retreating glaciers is not evidence of climate change. If the Glaciers started growing this would be more indicative of climate change.

  66. @Paleo Liberal
    Which people?

    I saw an article in Science Magazine in January by the fellow who coined the term “Green New Deal”.

    He explained what he meant by it. He made a ton of sense. And his Green New Deal is absolutely nothing like the Jill Stein / AOC “Green New Deal”.

    His proposal was to stop giving tax breaks for “Brown” energy, such as coal and oil, and use the money for “Green” energy instead. He pointed out, correctly, that the Chinese are getting a tremendous head start on us in renewable energy, to the point where we have to import from China. IMO, us being dependent on the Chinese for our energy is a national security nightmare.

    He also said a real Green New Deal should not bankrupt the nation.

    The problem with the so-called GND of Stein and AOC is it is not a real Green New Deal. Some parts of it are great. Some are not very well thought out. Some parts fall flat on their face. We cannot guarantee jobs for everyone and have open borders. We can not eliminate gas cars in 12 years when cars last 20 years and electric technology is not ripe. If you have $75,000 to spare you can get a nice SUV with a range of over 200 miles, but you have to charge it overnight.

    I want a REAL Green New Deal. Not the Stein / Ocasio Red-Green Hodgepodge.

    Sorry to say this. I am not a socialist, but I come a lot closer to being a socialist than other posters here. I realize that demanding even a mild form a socialism along with a Green New Deal is a poison pill. We need conservative conservationists. We need duck hunters and fishermen and snowmobilers on the same side as the hippy dippy tree huggers. I would love to see Medicare for All. But that is NOT a precondition for preserving our planet. It is a very different battle.

    I would love to see jobs for all Americans. But jobs for all plus open borders is a recipe for environmental disaster. “Abolish ICE” is not Green. It is fashionable pseudo socialist. Not even real socialism.

    Maybe I am just a grumpy old man.

    Respect for your recognition that environmentalism is inconsistent with open borders.

  67. @KenH

    Or is that the expected population of North America once all the racists who believe in borders are dealt with?
     
    Exactly. But even if the population reaches one billion by the end of this century as its intended to, once the productive whites die off the racial pigsty that will be N. America will implode. There won't be any free shit, free food and free medical care financed by whitey and there will be a mass die off of the bipedal life forms squatting on the carcass of a rotting America and Canada.

    Exactly. But even if the population reaches one billion by the end of this century as its intended to, once the productive whites die off the racial pigsty that will be N. America will implode. There won’t be any free shit, free food and free medical care financed by whitey and there will be a mass die off of the bipedal life forms squatting on the carcass of a rotting America and Canada.

    Not true. No mass die off.

    This is one of those “future” prediction cases where we have a reasonably good model of what America is morphing into–Brazil.

    Only if these white haters persist with their open borders madness and Steve’s “world’s most important graph” kicks in will zip on past Brazil. Even then a mass die off is unlikely. Even then we still have a reasonable model of what the US looks like–Africa.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "Even then a mass die off is unlikely. Even then we still have a reasonable model of what the US looks like–Africa."

    But it was Westerners who brought the medicines and knowledge that have slashed child deaths in Africa without slashing birth rates. Unless (as seems quite possible) the Chinese step up to the plate), without the West, Africa could get pretty Malthusian again - meaning mass die-offs.

    I could easily see the Chinese saying to Africans - "yes, you can have that drug to save your child , but you'll have to agree to be sterliised". Probably pretty sensible given the current demographic trends.

    The other unknown unknown is resistance - to antibiotics and to weedkillers. The way both are used today makes the spread of resistant organisms highly likely. Disease and famine are pretty good at producing mass die-offs.
    , @KenH

    Not true. No mass die off.
     
    Boomer optimism is touching, but yes there will be when whites are 15% or less of the population. How will they produce sufficient food when most of the arable farm land has been plowed over with shanty towns for third world bipeds or when the white genius in the American farming and agriculture industry is lost? When American currency is worthless on the world market how will the coffee colored bipeds import food from food producing nations?

    Brazil is still nearly 50% white so there's still plenty of them to keep the lights on and producing so the nation doesn't starve to death. America nearing the end of the 21st century won't be anywhere near 50% whites if current trends hold and the 10-15% of whites that might still exist could only dream of a time when they were still 50% of the population.
  68. @EldnahYm
    Green energy is mostly a sham and Chinese implementation of it is a sham.

    You can't produce steel, run tankers, create artificial fertilizers, fly airplanes, etc. with renewable energy. Furthermore most of the so-called renewables used today are old technology, like wood, charcoal, straw, hydroelectric energy etc. Back in the day we used old renewables as a much greater share of our total energy. The result of which was massive deforestation and near extinction for many species of whales. Nowadays North America and Europe are reforesting and the whales are recovering thanks to fossil fuels. Even hydroelectric dams are not particularly good for the environment. They have been catastrophic for eels and lampreys in many areas for example.

    Solar and wind use are trivial. If you look at historic energy transitions, they take many decades, and renewables are going to be even slower. In the current day it actually takes decades just for global fossil fuel usage as a percentage of total energy to go down 1%. Solar and wind both really only work in certain areas of the world, they have to be turned off during seasons when natural disasters are a threat, their output is unpredictable and low, and they're not particularly robust. Wind power has the extra negative that it is unpleasant to live around, and is bad for birds and bats.

    Even worse many idiots are recommending biofuels, which are a massive cause of deforestation, drive up food prices, and are a disaster for the environment. Export of them are good for some third world countries however, which also means they are bad for the environment.

    As for electric cars, they're not going to make a big difference in the end. The amount of energy it takes to produce new cars and the fact that Americans in particular continue to want bigger cars and more powerful engines means the efficiency gains will be minor. The impact on the grid of having large numbers of people charging their vehicle overnight is probably going to mean more plants will have to be open at late hours. It may even be a net energy loss.

    Green energy is a bad idea. Solar panels are a niche application only and we should ban all new windmills. The U.S. + Canada are practically energy independent already, and that's with shutting down some coal mines and offshoring which we can reopen in the future. China cornering the renewables market is no national security threat, it's just a bad investment for the Chinese(in particular since there's little use domestically for it). Environmentalists of the current day probably are a national security threat however.

    Thanks. It’s encouraging to read a comment by someone who can recognize the consequences of bumper sticker solutions.

  69. @Peripatetic Commenter
    But Steve, the Mississippi was glacier fed only a little while ago.

    The Laurentide Glacier fed it!

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet

    It could come back.

    The Mississippi took its current course, pretty much from Davenport, Iowa to just north of St. Louis, because the Illinoisan Glaciation of 130000 years ago blocked its former course. The Illinois River from just north of Peoria, Illinois was once the Mississippi. The Des Plaines River, in the Chicago Area, was created as a spillway from glaciers retreating during the end of the last glacial maximum.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    Good call. I've written here before about the Kankakee Torrent

    The Kankakee Torrent was a catastrophic flood that occurred about 19,000 BP calibrated years ago...The Kankakee Torrent was responsible for extensive modification of the Kankakee River and Illinois River river valleys and landforms characteristic of megaflooding. Both the Kankakee River and Illinois River largely follow paths carved out by the torrent, a process that is believed to have taken only days.
    [...]
    The effects of the Kankakee torrent were not limited to northeast Illinois. Both the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers appear to have had their courses altered by the Kankakee Torrent, with the Ohio being pushed further south and the Mississippi further west.
    [...]
    The heavy flow of water transported boulders downstream and moved glacial erratics from the tills. The faster flow towards center created a channel, which the modern river still follows. Floodwaters were confined to the inter-morane channels, which moved it west, then to the south. Upon reaching the LaSalle, Illinois, area, the flood entered the ancestral Mississippi valley, now abandoned. The area where the old Mississippi valley was joined is called the Big Bend of the Illinois River.
     

     
  70. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    I first learned about global warming from my great-grandmother back in the '60s based on her own life experiences.

    There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    And, as a physics student and later a Ph.D. physicist, I have been following the global-climate modelling efforts for nearly fifty years.

    Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    But, exactly what fraction of global warming is due to human action and what fraction to natural causes (the Little Ice Age was presumably not caused by human action)? That is a very hard question scientifically, and the answer is highly uncertain.

    And, even worse, what will the future of global climate be? Even harder to answer scientifically: as the saying has it, "Prediction is hard, especially of the future!"

    Anyone who wants to pursue this in more detail with someone who knows incredibly more about the subject than I should check out Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. blog. Judith is former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, and, I am happy to say, more or less agrees with my conclusions stated above.

    Professor Curry is an excellent source of informed commentary on this issue. I wonder why journalists who normally provide the usual blather and ballyhoo about any woman who comes within shouting distance of STEM don’t mention her more often.

  71. @Bill P
    Most of my local water supply comes from glaciers/snowmelt. The Nooksack river has that milky greenish color you get from glacial silt.

    But shrinking glaciers are not our primary water problem, or even a problem at all. Flooding is the main concern here. Happens almost every year. We've got more water than we know what to do with.

    The vast majority of glacial meltwater flows directly into northern seas. In SE Alaska the Inside Passage is creamy from all the silt. Hardly any of it is used for human consumption.

    These global warming people constantly discredit themselves with all the bullshit they put out on a regular basis. Their biggest accomplishment is frightening children who don't know any better.

    If there is actually global warming from extra co2, it stands to reason that the earth will become more moist and fertile, just like it was in prior warm periods. We'd be in much bigger trouble if another Younger Dryas came our way.

    Good comment Bill. Didn’t realize you were up Bellingham way.

    Glaciers are not some magical water source, that creates water. Water comes from the same old, same old–rain and snow. Glaciers are a water store. They move water–river flows–in time. In the steady state they basically move river flows from winter/spring to spring/summer/fall. That can be good or bad for humans depending on what the rainfall pattern is in a particular.

    Long term glaciers move water from “cold times” to “warm times”. So global warming actually produces more water as glaciers release water “stolen” from prior centuries, millenia.

    If humans like the water storage/time-management that glaciers provide they can always do it themselves. They are called “dams”.

    ~~

    And spot on on the Younger Dryas. Warming we can tolerate. It’s the return of the Ice Age that would be a whoop ass. Civilization is a big Holocene party … the ice comes back … the party’s over!

    • Replies: @Travis
    excellent point....and even if we manage to quintuple CO2 levels back to 2,000 ppm it will not forestall the next ice age.

    At the moment the Earth is in an interglacial period - a short warmer period between glacial (or ice age) periods. The Earth has been alternating between long ice ages and shorter interglacial periods for around 2.6 million years.

    For the last million these have been happening roughly every 100,000 years - around 90,000 years of ice age followed by a roughly 10,000 year interglacial warm period. In the past ice ages have begun when CO2 levels were 5 times higher than today. To conclude that CO2 controls our climate is preposterous. Nothing humans can do will prevent the next ice age.
    , @Bill P
    Yep, been up here in Bellingham for five years. Finally had it with Seattle. Now when I go back to visit my folks I feel relieved that I left when I did. Quality of life has really taken a nosedive down there.
  72. @Dtbb
    Amanpour & Co. on PBS is always going on about climate change but nary a mention of overpopulation. From the scenes of the protests they show from Europe it appears to me to be young girls trying to gain attention. Look at me!

    “From the scenes of the protests they show from Europe it appears to me to be young girls trying to gain attention. Look at me!”

    For the last three days, London has seen “climate demonstrations” aimed at bringing the place to a standstill. These eco-warriors/terrorists/nuisances are all white and middle class, high female representation. Plenty of public school lefties. The demos are probably a good place to pull if you’re a young white male or exotic minority (who are generally absent from the protests).

  73. Global warming is so dated. It’s called EXTINCTION now. A change in the language meant to scare and intimidate.

  74. @Anon
    It's amazing how many different "opinions" you get when you search Google Images for a map of North American watersheds. I guess my understanding of watershed is not accurate. I thought that a watershed was the contiguous area in which, anywhere within it, if you emptied your canteen on the ground, the water would exit to the sea through a particular river's mouth. Many of the maps however show landbound watersheds. Does the water drain into a cave, never to be seen again? Maybe they break up huge watersheds into sections based on river tributaries?

    At any rate, here is one:

    https://external-preview.redd.it/_tQzZDZGOMdTucw_vGcUXaWYeqvrc5dpcl07RcZWM-Y.png?auto=webp&s=1c37f0f37607539aebbb8ecef1145912a4d869cd

    I too have wondered about this question for a while, and also came to the conclusion that modern map makers are dimmer and lazier than their forebearers.

    A map of US watersheds should show:

    • A series of smallish but historically significant watersheds along the East and Southeast (Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, Susquehanna-Chesapeake, Savannah, Chattahoochee-Apalachicola etc.), usually with a significant city at their fall line (Hartford, Albany, Trenton, Harrisburg or Harve de Grace, Augusta, Columbus, etc.)

    • The enormous Mississippi watershed of the Great Plains.

    • The Great Lakes/St. Lawrence watershed draining the upper Midwest and northern Northeast.

    • The Great Basin (basically Nevada and Utah).

    • The Colorado draining/irrigating the Southwest, which no longer reaches the sea (somehow the environmental-immigration activists aren’t troubled by the main source of freshwater for the entire Southwest being used above 100% capacity).

    • The Columbia draining the Northwest.

    • The American-San Joaquin draining central California into the SF Bay.

    But somehow among all the useless maps made today, I’ve never found such a map. Worse, there are all sorts of misleading maps instead.

  75. @EldnahYm
    Green energy is mostly a sham and Chinese implementation of it is a sham.

    You can't produce steel, run tankers, create artificial fertilizers, fly airplanes, etc. with renewable energy. Furthermore most of the so-called renewables used today are old technology, like wood, charcoal, straw, hydroelectric energy etc. Back in the day we used old renewables as a much greater share of our total energy. The result of which was massive deforestation and near extinction for many species of whales. Nowadays North America and Europe are reforesting and the whales are recovering thanks to fossil fuels. Even hydroelectric dams are not particularly good for the environment. They have been catastrophic for eels and lampreys in many areas for example.

    Solar and wind use are trivial. If you look at historic energy transitions, they take many decades, and renewables are going to be even slower. In the current day it actually takes decades just for global fossil fuel usage as a percentage of total energy to go down 1%. Solar and wind both really only work in certain areas of the world, they have to be turned off during seasons when natural disasters are a threat, their output is unpredictable and low, and they're not particularly robust. Wind power has the extra negative that it is unpleasant to live around, and is bad for birds and bats.

    Even worse many idiots are recommending biofuels, which are a massive cause of deforestation, drive up food prices, and are a disaster for the environment. Export of them are good for some third world countries however, which also means they are bad for the environment.

    As for electric cars, they're not going to make a big difference in the end. The amount of energy it takes to produce new cars and the fact that Americans in particular continue to want bigger cars and more powerful engines means the efficiency gains will be minor. The impact on the grid of having large numbers of people charging their vehicle overnight is probably going to mean more plants will have to be open at late hours. It may even be a net energy loss.

    Green energy is a bad idea. Solar panels are a niche application only and we should ban all new windmills. The U.S. + Canada are practically energy independent already, and that's with shutting down some coal mines and offshoring which we can reopen in the future. China cornering the renewables market is no national security threat, it's just a bad investment for the Chinese(in particular since there's little use domestically for it). Environmentalists of the current day probably are a national security threat however.

    Nothing as efficient as a 80 year old coal plant.

  76. @AnotherDad

    Exactly. But even if the population reaches one billion by the end of this century as its intended to, once the productive whites die off the racial pigsty that will be N. America will implode. There won’t be any free shit, free food and free medical care financed by whitey and there will be a mass die off of the bipedal life forms squatting on the carcass of a rotting America and Canada.
     
    Not true. No mass die off.

    This is one of those "future" prediction cases where we have a reasonably good model of what America is morphing into--Brazil.

    Only if these white haters persist with their open borders madness and Steve's "world's most important graph" kicks in will zip on past Brazil. Even then a mass die off is unlikely. Even then we still have a reasonable model of what the US looks like--Africa.

    “Even then a mass die off is unlikely. Even then we still have a reasonable model of what the US looks like–Africa.”

    But it was Westerners who brought the medicines and knowledge that have slashed child deaths in Africa without slashing birth rates. Unless (as seems quite possible) the Chinese step up to the plate), without the West, Africa could get pretty Malthusian again – meaning mass die-offs.

    I could easily see the Chinese saying to Africans – “yes, you can have that drug to save your child , but you’ll have to agree to be sterliised“. Probably pretty sensible given the current demographic trends.

    The other unknown unknown is resistance – to antibiotics and to weedkillers. The way both are used today makes the spread of resistant organisms highly likely. Disease and famine are pretty good at producing mass die-offs.

  77. anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    It's amazing how many different "opinions" you get when you search Google Images for a map of North American watersheds. I guess my understanding of watershed is not accurate. I thought that a watershed was the contiguous area in which, anywhere within it, if you emptied your canteen on the ground, the water would exit to the sea through a particular river's mouth. Many of the maps however show landbound watersheds. Does the water drain into a cave, never to be seen again? Maybe they break up huge watersheds into sections based on river tributaries?

    At any rate, here is one:

    https://external-preview.redd.it/_tQzZDZGOMdTucw_vGcUXaWYeqvrc5dpcl07RcZWM-Y.png?auto=webp&s=1c37f0f37607539aebbb8ecef1145912a4d869cd

    What you are calling “landbound” watersheds are endorheic basins – regions where water drains to an inland sea or simply evaporates directly, never making it to an ocean. The Great Basin in Utah/Nevada is the major one in North America. In Eastern Europe and Western Asia an even larger region drains to the Caspian Sea and doesn’t make it out.

  78. @Barnard
    I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not the people who have proposed solutions to fix it.

    I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not the people who have proposed solutions to fix it.

    I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not many of the people who espouse it.

  79. @njguy73

    If you care about climate change, shouldn’t you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?

     

    From the NY Times, November 4, 1990:

    Needless to say, few Earth Firsters actually practice Deep Ecology. Not many have given up their cars or unplugged their word processors. Even Dave Foreman, wearing a Hawaiian shirt and chomping on a cheeseburger in a Ramada Inn in downtown Tucson, Ariz., his home city, looks every bit the middle-class American he admits to being. "Certainly I recognize the contradiction in flying all over the country to give speeches about not doing that sort of thing," Foreman says casually between bites. "There are constantly contradictions."
     

    Foreman isn't sure how many human beings the earth could support in a society that gave equal rights to all creatures. But Arne Naess, a Norwegian philosopher who coined the term Deep Ecology, once suggested, in all seriousness, a target population for the globe of 100 million people.

    Such thinking has lead some Earth Firsters to view human beings as, in Foreman's words, "a cancer on nature." Indeed, Foreman goes so far as to argue that the United States ought to be closed to immigration. His reasoning is that an influx of people striving to live a middle-class life in America will deplete our resources faster than if they'd remained home in the third world.

    Foreman has also suggested that such human tragedies as the AIDS epidemic and African famines can be viewed as examples of nature healing itself. Rather than send foreign aid to Ethiopia, he once argued, "the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve."
     
    https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/04/magazine/if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-they-hear-it.html

    LOL at the NY Times already 30 years ago:

    “target population for the globe of 100 million people”, i.e., exterminate 98% of human life: yaaawn.

    But,

    “to argue that the United States ought to be closed to immigration” OMG! What kind of monster would “go so far”?!?!

    The NYT has been IYI for a long time.

  80. @Mr McKenna

    if Climate Change we’re the thing it is claimed to be, it wouldn’t be left up to the SJW types to promote awareness.
     
    So the hundreds of scientists--including virtually all the leaders in the relevant fields--as formal signatories to declarations mean nothing to you?

    Are you ever right about anything?

    (Thankfully) scientific truth isn’t determined by democratic vote, let alone corrupt plutocratic coercion.

    But you do you.

  81. @t
    It’s fascinating how Climate Change and Migration are concepts in wholly separate silos in the MSM mind.

    Not true at all they claim migrants are "Climate Refugees"

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/how-climate-change-is-fuelling-the-us-border-crisis

    Not true at all they claim migrants are “Climate Refugees”

    Exactly. The notion of “climate refugees” is how they figured they could rationalize forcing the West to take in hundreds of millions of invaders from “the Global South.” Weather patterns driven by climate change cause heat waves, drought, erosion, and force Muslims and Africans to breed like rabbits. It’s amazing all the things that carbon dioxide can do. As everyone knows, before climate change became a thing Sub-Saharan Africa was pretty much paradise.

    Of course there is no way in hell that we will ever reduce carbon emissions to the level the climate hustlers want, so we will never ever get to a point where we will be allowed to say “Ok, problem fixed. These people need to stop coming.” Especially since increased population in the West leads to greater overall production of CO2 gas. It’s like a vicious cycle.

    • Replies: @Cucksworth
    Not sure if it’s ok to say this on here, but the way to save humanity is to sterilize Africa, India, Brazil, Indonesia. Any solution that does not involve mass sterilization is not feasible.
  82. @AnotherDad
    Good comment Bill. Didn't realize you were up Bellingham way.


    Glaciers are not some magical water source, that creates water. Water comes from the same old, same old--rain and snow. Glaciers are a water store. They move water--river flows--in time. In the steady state they basically move river flows from winter/spring to spring/summer/fall. That can be good or bad for humans depending on what the rainfall pattern is in a particular.

    Long term glaciers move water from "cold times" to "warm times". So global warming actually produces more water as glaciers release water "stolen" from prior centuries, millenia.

    If humans like the water storage/time-management that glaciers provide they can always do it themselves. They are called "dams".

    ~~

    And spot on on the Younger Dryas. Warming we can tolerate. It's the return of the Ice Age that would be a whoop ass. Civilization is a big Holocene party ... the ice comes back ... the party's over!

    excellent point….and even if we manage to quintuple CO2 levels back to 2,000 ppm it will not forestall the next ice age.

    At the moment the Earth is in an interglacial period – a short warmer period between glacial (or ice age) periods. The Earth has been alternating between long ice ages and shorter interglacial periods for around 2.6 million years.

    For the last million these have been happening roughly every 100,000 years – around 90,000 years of ice age followed by a roughly 10,000 year interglacial warm period. In the past ice ages have begun when CO2 levels were 5 times higher than today. To conclude that CO2 controls our climate is preposterous. Nothing humans can do will prevent the next ice age.

    • Agree: Bubba
  83. @Wilkey
    Not true at all they claim migrants are “Climate Refugees”

    Exactly. The notion of "climate refugees" is how they figured they could rationalize forcing the West to take in hundreds of millions of invaders from "the Global South." Weather patterns driven by climate change cause heat waves, drought, erosion, and force Muslims and Africans to breed like rabbits. It's amazing all the things that carbon dioxide can do. As everyone knows, before climate change became a thing Sub-Saharan Africa was pretty much paradise.

    Of course there is no way in hell that we will ever reduce carbon emissions to the level the climate hustlers want, so we will never ever get to a point where we will be allowed to say "Ok, problem fixed. These people need to stop coming." Especially since increased population in the West leads to greater overall production of CO2 gas. It's like a vicious cycle.

    Not sure if it’s ok to say this on here, but the way to save humanity is to sterilize Africa, India, Brazil, Indonesia. Any solution that does not involve mass sterilization is not feasible.

    • Agree: Mis(ter)Anthrope
  84. From today’s NYT:

    How Much Slower Would the U.S. Grow Without Immigration? In Many Places, a Lot
    New census data shows that big cities and rural counties depend on international migration the most.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/upshot/how-much-slower-would-the-us-grow-without-immigration-in-many-places-a-lot.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=The%20Upshot

    The article suggests that we’d be worse off without al that population growth that we get from immigration.

    And of course there are several articles today about climate change.

    Insanity.

  85. @Icy Blast
    California is not "essentially desert scrub." It is only about 12% desert. And there are 12 mountain ranges in California. Ever heard of the Sierra Nevadas, the Cascades, and the San Gabriels, to name just three? Turn off the TV and do some reading. PBS is not an educational resource. (By the way, the south end of the Cascades is in Northern California. Ever heard of Mount Shasta? People like you amaze me with their TV-based idiocy.)

    Say what? Yes, it’s been a wet winter here this year, but Old Yeller speaks much truth. In my area of Northern CA, we have “scrub oaks” and “scrub brush” everywhere. It’s a handy way to describe flora and fauna that can survive during long droughts, including the 6 months each year when it doesn’t rain.

    The reason CA is so fertile and productive is the water planning of our forefathers who built the dams and reservoirs and canals and levies and pumps… environmentalists, in their purest forms, would tear all that apart in seconds.

    • Replies: @Old Yeller

    The reason CA is so fertile and productive is the water planning of our forefathers who built the dams and reservoirs and canals and levies and pumps… environmentalists, in their purest forms, would tear all that apart in seconds.
     
    Indeed. In fact, were it not for the engineering genius of our forefathers, presuming "Icy Blast" lives in Southern California, which is doubtful, he would currently be suckling he’s mothers breast for survival, rather than neurotic compulsion.
    , @res
    "desert" is an overstatement for most of CA. Desert is sometimes defined as less than 10 inches of rain per year. Here is an annual rainfall map (inches) of CA:

    https://www.eldoradoweather.com/images/california-precipitation-map2.gif

    But you make a good point about the dry months. And the proportion of CA which supports intense agriculture and/or high population density with less than 20 local inches of rain per year is pretty amazing.

    London makes an interesting contrast with 23 inches of rain per year. It's just spread out relatively evenly over the year.
    https://www.tripsavvy.com/wettest-cities-usa-vs-rainy-london-3975248
    , @Icy Blast
    First of all, Feinstein, Pelosi, and their cronies have found ways to legally divert millions of gallons of freshwater into the Sacramento River Delta (the east end of the San Francisco Bay). Apparently they consider agriculture a hate crime of some sort and they are working to eradicate it. Secondly, there's a technology called "desalination" that it seems few Democrats have heard of, or which they consider to be another crime of some sort. Finally, Feinstein's friends the Resnicks seem to have plenty of water for their huge agricultural holdings at the south end of the Central Valley. Of course, I'm quite sure their superabundance of freshwater has nothing to do with their massive cash donations to the Democratic Party.
  86. @Buzz Mohawk
    Many of the permanent snowfields in the Rockies have disappeared or gotten smaller over the past two or three decades. Summertime above timberline is grayer than before. Climate does change, but it is folly for us to attempt to control it. We must prepare for it.

    There are Caltech scientists who have convincingly shown that most glacier and ice melting is due to greater absorption of energy from the sun because of deposition human-caused soot and of dust from plowing.

    This theory is accepted and intensively studied by most of the relevant scientists in China and India. They are concerned because most of their water comes from melting glaciers.

    These causes of warming can be much more easily and effectively reduced then can the warming due to carbon dioxide.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    This theory is accepted and intensively studied by most of the relevant scientists in China and India. They are concerned because most of their water comes from melting glaciers.
     
    That sounds like useful information. Those folks in China and India should get right on it. They and their fellow overpopulated neighbors are THE major polluters on the planet, by far.
  87. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    I first learned about global warming from my great-grandmother back in the '60s based on her own life experiences.

    There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    And, as a physics student and later a Ph.D. physicist, I have been following the global-climate modelling efforts for nearly fifty years.

    Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    But, exactly what fraction of global warming is due to human action and what fraction to natural causes (the Little Ice Age was presumably not caused by human action)? That is a very hard question scientifically, and the answer is highly uncertain.

    And, even worse, what will the future of global climate be? Even harder to answer scientifically: as the saying has it, "Prediction is hard, especially of the future!"

    Anyone who wants to pursue this in more detail with someone who knows incredibly more about the subject than I should check out Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. blog. Judith is former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, and, I am happy to say, more or less agrees with my conclusions stated above.

    There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    Yes. Cities are hotter than farmland, which is hotter than forest.

    Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    So we are told, but like somebody mentioned up thread, nobody acts like CO2 is the actual problem. If it were a problem, like lead in paint or heavy metals showing up in raptors, then we’d solve it. We’d ban SUV’s and limit trans-oceanic transport. We’d build nuclear reactors, and we’d spread people out instead of concentrating them in megalopolises.

    The experts in the field aren’t acting like CO2-global warming is the problem. Instead, their actions belie incentives aligned with CO2-global warming being the solution in search of the problem.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    The Anti-Gnotic wrote to me:

    [Dave] There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    [TAG} Yes. Cities are hotter than farmland, which is hotter than forest.
     

    The urban heat-island effect. But, even putting that aside, there is no doubt the globe has warmed. Back around 1700, we were in the middle of the Little Ice Age. We're not now.

    By the way, the main people now trying to deny the LIA and the Medieval Warm Period seem to be the global-warming hysterics: those facts spoil their narrative that climate change is all the fault of humans.

    TAG also wrote:


    [Dave] Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    [TAG] So we are told, but like somebody mentioned up thread, nobody acts like CO2 is the actual problem.
     

    The physics on this is very simple: the only people who deny this are people who did not take (or did not understand) frosh physics. I literally know of no actual physical scientist who denies that anthropogenic CO2 produces some warming (I do know of some engineers -- but engineers are not scientists: consider Bill Nye, the not-science guy).

    TAG also wrote:


    The experts in the field aren’t acting like CO2-global warming is the problem.
     
    Well, there just is not any serious evidence that global warming is going to be catastrophic: it almost certainly will not destroy human civilization, much less the biosphere. Anyone who is not actually following the real scientific research is just going to hear the Oprahesque nonsense in the mass media, which is all just hot air (pardon the pun).

    Climate change does happen -- always has and always will -- and it is a legitimate subject for scientific research. I got interested in the subject, just out of curiosity, decades before it became politicized.

    Unfortunately, a legitimate scientific matter has been latched on to for political purposes, pretty much as the Nazis latched on to Darwinism.

  88. @Coemgen
    I know that I'm an apostate but, when I hear "global warming," I hear "overpopulation" (with a sideorder of globalism über alles).

    … when I hear “global warming,” I hear “overpopulation”

    Agree, and that applies to many of today’s issues: resource depletion; migration; pollution; water problems; etc.

    Liberals used to fret about population numbers, but then they discovered demographic replacement of their political opponents, so all is okay now.

    • Replies: @Lowe
    I don't think they stopped talking about over-population because they realized demographic replacement was a weapon they could use to win elections. That sounds like a plan. Very few people have any kind of plan.

    They stopped talking about over-population because it became clear the only people over-populating anything are members of the colored races, who are untouchable, beyond critique, according to thinking on the left. They stopped talking about it because they are weak dogs, not men.

    Not a surprise. You'd find personal weakness is the reason for most people's decisions, most of the time.
  89. @Mike Zwick
    The Mississippi took its current course, pretty much from Davenport, Iowa to just north of St. Louis, because the Illinoisan Glaciation of 130000 years ago blocked its former course. The Illinois River from just north of Peoria, Illinois was once the Mississippi. The Des Plaines River, in the Chicago Area, was created as a spillway from glaciers retreating during the end of the last glacial maximum.

    Good call. I’ve written here before about the Kankakee Torrent

    The Kankakee Torrent was a catastrophic flood that occurred about 19,000 BP calibrated years ago…The Kankakee Torrent was responsible for extensive modification of the Kankakee River and Illinois River river valleys and landforms characteristic of megaflooding. Both the Kankakee River and Illinois River largely follow paths carved out by the torrent, a process that is believed to have taken only days.
    […]
    The effects of the Kankakee torrent were not limited to northeast Illinois. Both the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers appear to have had their courses altered by the Kankakee Torrent, with the Ohio being pushed further south and the Mississippi further west.
    […]
    The heavy flow of water transported boulders downstream and moved glacial erratics from the tills. The faster flow towards center created a channel, which the modern river still follows. Floodwaters were confined to the inter-morane channels, which moved it west, then to the south. Upon reaching the LaSalle, Illinois, area, the flood entered the ancestral Mississippi valley, now abandoned. The area where the old Mississippi valley was joined is called the Big Bend of the Illinois River.

  90. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    I first learned about global warming from my great-grandmother back in the '60s based on her own life experiences.

    There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    And, as a physics student and later a Ph.D. physicist, I have been following the global-climate modelling efforts for nearly fifty years.

    Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    But, exactly what fraction of global warming is due to human action and what fraction to natural causes (the Little Ice Age was presumably not caused by human action)? That is a very hard question scientifically, and the answer is highly uncertain.

    And, even worse, what will the future of global climate be? Even harder to answer scientifically: as the saying has it, "Prediction is hard, especially of the future!"

    Anyone who wants to pursue this in more detail with someone who knows incredibly more about the subject than I should check out Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. blog. Judith is former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, and, I am happy to say, more or less agrees with my conclusions stated above.

    PhysicistDave and Jack D should get a room. Then they can work out who is the most tiresomely pompous and self-important.

    • Agree: Meretricious
    • Disagree: Vinteuil
    • Troll: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    You mean because we actually think it sometimes takes more than 140 characters to express a thought?

    I congratulate you on never having a thought that big.
    , @Simply Simon
    If I had Jack D or PDs scope of knowledge I'd probably be a bit pompous also. I feel sure Sailer welcomes their inputs on a great variety of subjects. A blog like Sailer's would not last long if 100IQs were the main contributors. These two lads are Mensa plus.
  91. You’ve completely ignored the potential devastating effects this will have on the price of Voss water.

  92. None of the climate models have been validated, the models have failed to predict the observed reality. CO2 levels are much higher today than in the late 9o’s , yet despite higher CO2 levels there has been no measurable warming of the Earth over the last 20 years, with no statistical difference in Global temps esteem 1998 and 2016. And contrary to the models the Earth has been cooling since 2016. What explains the global cooling we have observed since 2016 ?

  93. All of the glaciers in Iceland are growing and have been since 2015.

    https://electroverse.net/icelandic-glaciers-are-expanding-for-the-first-time-in-decades-grand-solar-minimum/

    I also read the largest glacier in Greenland is now growing.

    good luck seeing that in the MSM.

  94. @KenH

    Or is that the expected population of North America once all the racists who believe in borders are dealt with?
     
    Exactly. But even if the population reaches one billion by the end of this century as its intended to, once the productive whites die off the racial pigsty that will be N. America will implode. There won't be any free shit, free food and free medical care financed by whitey and there will be a mass die off of the bipedal life forms squatting on the carcass of a rotting America and Canada.

    People in the US consume and require orders of magnitude more water than those in third world shitholes.- Here’s looking at the Guats et al.
    The collection, treatment distribution and disposal of this water is a great strain on the environment. The climate Kult should be barring the border with their bodies to prevent the immigration invasion rapine of Gaea.

  95. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    I first learned about global warming from my great-grandmother back in the '60s based on her own life experiences.

    There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    And, as a physics student and later a Ph.D. physicist, I have been following the global-climate modelling efforts for nearly fifty years.

    Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    But, exactly what fraction of global warming is due to human action and what fraction to natural causes (the Little Ice Age was presumably not caused by human action)? That is a very hard question scientifically, and the answer is highly uncertain.

    And, even worse, what will the future of global climate be? Even harder to answer scientifically: as the saying has it, "Prediction is hard, especially of the future!"

    Anyone who wants to pursue this in more detail with someone who knows incredibly more about the subject than I should check out Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. blog. Judith is former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, and, I am happy to say, more or less agrees with my conclusions stated above.

    Given the other gross environmental damage of runaway globalism, it is prudent to be biased on the side of those advocating the human piece. That said, that piece could still turn out to be infinitesimally small relative to other factors (solar cycles, et al).

    The other concern is Climate Change sucking all the air out of the Environmentalism room like Identity Politics does to traditional Leftish issues.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Desiderius wrote to me:

    Given the other gross environmental damage of runaway globalism, it is prudent to be biased on the side of those advocating the human piece. That said, that piece could still turn out to be infinitesimally small relative to other factors (solar cycles, et al).
     
    Yeah, one good way to get all the kooks on both sides angry at you is to point out that it really might be true that anthropogenic CO2 accounts for 10% of global warming and natural phenomena account for the other 90%.

    The climate hysterics get angry at anyone who makes the legitimate point that human effects might be rather minor. The scientifically illiterate "denialists" get angry at the idea that humans might affect the climate at all.

    I should reiterate the point someone made earlier: the real problem with the modeling efforts so far is that their predictions have not agreed with observations. Scientifically, that is a killer.

    This does not mean that the research is fraudulent. The whole climate system is incredibly complex -- e.g., modeling clouds is an almost impossible nightmare. Legitimate scientific research is, by its nature, really hard. That climate modeling has, so far, been unsuccessful is not surprising.

    The problem is the people who take this ongoing research effort and treat the tentative (and, so far, wrong) results as if they are proven dogma.
  96. @EldnahYm
    Green energy is mostly a sham and Chinese implementation of it is a sham.

    You can't produce steel, run tankers, create artificial fertilizers, fly airplanes, etc. with renewable energy. Furthermore most of the so-called renewables used today are old technology, like wood, charcoal, straw, hydroelectric energy etc. Back in the day we used old renewables as a much greater share of our total energy. The result of which was massive deforestation and near extinction for many species of whales. Nowadays North America and Europe are reforesting and the whales are recovering thanks to fossil fuels. Even hydroelectric dams are not particularly good for the environment. They have been catastrophic for eels and lampreys in many areas for example.

    Solar and wind use are trivial. If you look at historic energy transitions, they take many decades, and renewables are going to be even slower. In the current day it actually takes decades just for global fossil fuel usage as a percentage of total energy to go down 1%. Solar and wind both really only work in certain areas of the world, they have to be turned off during seasons when natural disasters are a threat, their output is unpredictable and low, and they're not particularly robust. Wind power has the extra negative that it is unpleasant to live around, and is bad for birds and bats.

    Even worse many idiots are recommending biofuels, which are a massive cause of deforestation, drive up food prices, and are a disaster for the environment. Export of them are good for some third world countries however, which also means they are bad for the environment.

    As for electric cars, they're not going to make a big difference in the end. The amount of energy it takes to produce new cars and the fact that Americans in particular continue to want bigger cars and more powerful engines means the efficiency gains will be minor. The impact on the grid of having large numbers of people charging their vehicle overnight is probably going to mean more plants will have to be open at late hours. It may even be a net energy loss.

    Green energy is a bad idea. Solar panels are a niche application only and we should ban all new windmills. The U.S. + Canada are practically energy independent already, and that's with shutting down some coal mines and offshoring which we can reopen in the future. China cornering the renewables market is no national security threat, it's just a bad investment for the Chinese(in particular since there's little use domestically for it). Environmentalists of the current day probably are a national security threat however.

    Where’d you get these talking points? Exxon?

    Everything you say is wrong. You cherry pick things to pick on. You never mention efficiency/conservation. You are a sophomoron.

  97. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    I first learned about global warming from my great-grandmother back in the '60s based on her own life experiences.

    There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    And, as a physics student and later a Ph.D. physicist, I have been following the global-climate modelling efforts for nearly fifty years.

    Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    But, exactly what fraction of global warming is due to human action and what fraction to natural causes (the Little Ice Age was presumably not caused by human action)? That is a very hard question scientifically, and the answer is highly uncertain.

    And, even worse, what will the future of global climate be? Even harder to answer scientifically: as the saying has it, "Prediction is hard, especially of the future!"

    Anyone who wants to pursue this in more detail with someone who knows incredibly more about the subject than I should check out Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. blog. Judith is former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, and, I am happy to say, more or less agrees with my conclusions stated above.

    The little ice age was caused by the massive die-off of 10s of millions of American Indians. Sorry.

    • Replies: @Alden
    global warmingists claim neither the little ice age nor the 800 to 1100 AD global warming age ever happened.
  98. @Bill P
    Wind and solar are pre-industrial power sources, which perhaps explains the attraction to true believers. If we really had a carbon pollution problem - and people in the know really believed it - we'd be cutting through red tape and building reactors all over the country. There's plenty of nuclear fuel out there, including in seawater.

    But the truth is that even our politicians who pay lip service to AGW are actually quite content to burn cheap natural gas into the foreseeable future. They don't even take it seriously -- they just think it's a convenient way to scare people into paying higher taxes.

    Pro-nukes are the most evil persons in the entire world. May they rot in hell.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    LOL. How humane do you think things will be when 7 billion humans start burning wood in a desperate hunt for caloric energy?
  99. @AKAHorace
    If you care about climate change, shouldn’t you want all those migrants to stay in their 3rd world low-emissions countries rather than our high emission/consumption society?



    Also, a high standard of living is more energy intensive in a cold climate where you need central heating to live comfortably and cycling is impossible during the winter.

    I’ve lived in downstate IL, SA TX, Phoenix AZ and the Twin Cities, MN. There are more folks ‘cycling into downtown MNSP and ST Paul in the winter than into any of the other listed cities at any time of year. It’s easier to put on enough cloths to keep warm while bicycling than to take off enough to keep cool in the other cities,

  100. @TWS
    The entire edifice of establishment global warming crap is held up by lies and unreality. The further we go without the world ending, the larger their lies and breathless threats. Billions without water, glaciers disappear, everyone spontaneously combusts.

    Meanwhile, for those of us who live in the real world, here’s what the global warming scam is all about:

    This can never be repeated enough:

    http://www.investors.com/po&#8230;

    “At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    and

    http://www.cfact.org/2017/0&#8230;

    “Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.””

  101. @trelane
    New York Times fact checkers have been missing in action for at least 15-20 years.
  102. @Icy Blast
    California is not "essentially desert scrub." It is only about 12% desert. And there are 12 mountain ranges in California. Ever heard of the Sierra Nevadas, the Cascades, and the San Gabriels, to name just three? Turn off the TV and do some reading. PBS is not an educational resource. (By the way, the south end of the Cascades is in Northern California. Ever heard of Mount Shasta? People like you amaze me with their TV-based idiocy.)

    California is not “essentially desert scrub.” It is only about 12% desert. And there are 12 mountain ranges in California. Ever heard of the Sierra Nevadas, the Cascades, and the San Gabriels, to name just three? Turn off the TV and do some reading.

    California is at least 25 % desert. You got mixed up with your google search, and mistook the percentage of desert in the United States with the percentage of desert land in California. I don’t really need to read about the deconstruction and chaos of California since Mexico began its sleazy land grab. I’m living it. I would also include “high deserts” under the same nomenclature, which only further supports my claim that water resources are limited for America’s bread basket, and we better pay attention to, and severely restrict immigrant dumping here.

    So, crawl back in the hole your parents let you reside in, and give up giving lessons to your betters. You’re too lazy to make your own bed in the morning, much less commit to any research on anything more important than your cherished double-stuffed Oreo’s, and the pizza crusts hidden under your discount mattress.

  103. Greenland has added about 100 billion tons of ice so far this month. Ski areas in California will be open until July this year. Im not worried about global regional or local warming.

    • Agree: Bubba, Prodigal son
  104. @Dtbb
    Amanpour & Co. on PBS is always going on about climate change but nary a mention of overpopulation. From the scenes of the protests they show from Europe it appears to me to be young girls trying to gain attention. Look at me!

    Dttb, An interview between Susan Goldberg, the “first jew and woman to be editor of National Geographic” (her description, not mine) and Melinda Gates , Goldberg asks Gates, if she had a magic wand (as if Bill’s wand wasn’t magic enough) what would she wish for. Melinda’s surprising answer is : contraception for at least 200 million woman.

  105. @stillCARealist
    Say what? Yes, it's been a wet winter here this year, but Old Yeller speaks much truth. In my area of Northern CA, we have "scrub oaks" and "scrub brush" everywhere. It's a handy way to describe flora and fauna that can survive during long droughts, including the 6 months each year when it doesn't rain.

    The reason CA is so fertile and productive is the water planning of our forefathers who built the dams and reservoirs and canals and levies and pumps... environmentalists, in their purest forms, would tear all that apart in seconds.

    The reason CA is so fertile and productive is the water planning of our forefathers who built the dams and reservoirs and canals and levies and pumps… environmentalists, in their purest forms, would tear all that apart in seconds.

    Indeed. In fact, were it not for the engineering genius of our forefathers, presuming “Icy Blast” lives in Southern California, which is doubtful, he would currently be suckling he’s mothers breast for survival, rather than neurotic compulsion.

  106. @Mr McKenna
    My wife's Noritake (Japanese) porcelain 'chinaware' is made in Indonesia.

    Why don't we hear more about Indonesia? Isn't their population exploding?

    Mr. Mc, Exploing population could be a solution to over population. Work on that, ok?

    • LOL: Mr McKenna
  107. @peterike
    PhysicistDave and Jack D should get a room. Then they can work out who is the most tiresomely pompous and self-important.

    You mean because we actually think it sometimes takes more than 140 characters to express a thought?

    I congratulate you on never having a thought that big.

  108. Um, not to quibble but if the water remains in the frozen state, it cannot be used, no?

    Fifty something years ago, my family visited Glacier National Park, and even then the glaciers had been receding for over a hundred years.

    Glaciers are pretty much always either receding or advancing, and it’s generally worse for us humans when it’s the latter.

  109. I take global warming serious, when the people endlessly talking about it stop flying to exotic places a few times a year.

  110. @bomag

    ... when I hear “global warming,” I hear “overpopulation”
     
    Agree, and that applies to many of today's issues: resource depletion; migration; pollution; water problems; etc.

    Liberals used to fret about population numbers, but then they discovered demographic replacement of their political opponents, so all is okay now.

    I don’t think they stopped talking about over-population because they realized demographic replacement was a weapon they could use to win elections. That sounds like a plan. Very few people have any kind of plan.

    They stopped talking about over-population because it became clear the only people over-populating anything are members of the colored races, who are untouchable, beyond critique, according to thinking on the left. They stopped talking about it because they are weak dogs, not men.

    Not a surprise. You’d find personal weakness is the reason for most people’s decisions, most of the time.

  111. @The Anti-Gnostic
    There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    Yes. Cities are hotter than farmland, which is hotter than forest.

    Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    So we are told, but like somebody mentioned up thread, nobody acts like CO2 is the actual problem. If it were a problem, like lead in paint or heavy metals showing up in raptors, then we'd solve it. We'd ban SUV's and limit trans-oceanic transport. We'd build nuclear reactors, and we'd spread people out instead of concentrating them in megalopolises.

    The experts in the field aren't acting like CO2-global warming is the problem. Instead, their actions belie incentives aligned with CO2-global warming being the solution in search of the problem.

    The Anti-Gnotic wrote to me:

    [Dave] There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    [TAG} Yes. Cities are hotter than farmland, which is hotter than forest.

    The urban heat-island effect. But, even putting that aside, there is no doubt the globe has warmed. Back around 1700, we were in the middle of the Little Ice Age. We’re not now.

    By the way, the main people now trying to deny the LIA and the Medieval Warm Period seem to be the global-warming hysterics: those facts spoil their narrative that climate change is all the fault of humans.

    TAG also wrote:

    [Dave] Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    [TAG] So we are told, but like somebody mentioned up thread, nobody acts like CO2 is the actual problem.

    The physics on this is very simple: the only people who deny this are people who did not take (or did not understand) frosh physics. I literally know of no actual physical scientist who denies that anthropogenic CO2 produces some warming (I do know of some engineers — but engineers are not scientists: consider Bill Nye, the not-science guy).

    TAG also wrote:

    The experts in the field aren’t acting like CO2-global warming is the problem.

    Well, there just is not any serious evidence that global warming is going to be catastrophic: it almost certainly will not destroy human civilization, much less the biosphere. Anyone who is not actually following the real scientific research is just going to hear the Oprahesque nonsense in the mass media, which is all just hot air (pardon the pun).

    Climate change does happen — always has and always will — and it is a legitimate subject for scientific research. I got interested in the subject, just out of curiosity, decades before it became politicized.

    Unfortunately, a legitimate scientific matter has been latched on to for political purposes, pretty much as the Nazis latched on to Darwinism.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    The physics on this is very simple:

    Okay, refer me to the reproducible experiments which demonstrate this simple physics.

    I don't doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas--that's how you get Venus after all-- but I suspect it's a small part of a much bigger problem. Focus on CO2 is a deflection, which was Michael Crichton's opinion.
  112. @Desiderius
    Given the other gross environmental damage of runaway globalism, it is prudent to be biased on the side of those advocating the human piece. That said, that piece could still turn out to be infinitesimally small relative to other factors (solar cycles, et al).

    The other concern is Climate Change sucking all the air out of the Environmentalism room like Identity Politics does to traditional Leftish issues.

    Desiderius wrote to me:

    Given the other gross environmental damage of runaway globalism, it is prudent to be biased on the side of those advocating the human piece. That said, that piece could still turn out to be infinitesimally small relative to other factors (solar cycles, et al).

    Yeah, one good way to get all the kooks on both sides angry at you is to point out that it really might be true that anthropogenic CO2 accounts for 10% of global warming and natural phenomena account for the other 90%.

    The climate hysterics get angry at anyone who makes the legitimate point that human effects might be rather minor. The scientifically illiterate “denialists” get angry at the idea that humans might affect the climate at all.

    I should reiterate the point someone made earlier: the real problem with the modeling efforts so far is that their predictions have not agreed with observations. Scientifically, that is a killer.

    This does not mean that the research is fraudulent. The whole climate system is incredibly complex — e.g., modeling clouds is an almost impossible nightmare. Legitimate scientific research is, by its nature, really hard. That climate modeling has, so far, been unsuccessful is not surprising.

    The problem is the people who take this ongoing research effort and treat the tentative (and, so far, wrong) results as if they are proven dogma.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    The scientifically illiterate “denialists” get angry at the idea that humans might affect the climate at all.
     
    Not my experience. Doesn't matter, they have no seat at the table.

    This does not mean that the research is fraudulent. The whole climate system is incredibly complex
     
    Exactly. It's a young science and one dealing with questions well beyond the capacity of current mathematics (highly non-linear systems), which both make the appeal to unanimity absolutely daft to anyone with the most basic experience of how science works.
  113. @Mr McKenna
    My wife's Noritake (Japanese) porcelain 'chinaware' is made in Indonesia.

    Why don't we hear more about Indonesia? Isn't their population exploding?

    My wife’s Noritake (Japanese) porcelain ‘chinaware’ is made in Indonesia.

    Well, then, it’s not made in China, is it?

    I suspect it’s done by Malay drones under ethnic Chinese oversight, CMIIW.

  114. Doesn’t the idiot realize the glaciers have to melt before they can provide water? Doesn’t the idiot realize that if the globe stays frozen and doesn’t warm up there won’t be any more glacier melt water and we will all die of thirst?

    I assume the idiot is totally unaware of 250 years French and American records of snow rain and yearly floods in the entire one third of America drained by the Mississippi Missouri and its numerous east west tributaries.

    Does the idiot intellectual even know the Missouri Mississippi is a north south system, does the idiot intellectual even know there are 2 rivers? Probably not, after all the idiot went to college.

  115. @PhysicistDave
    Desiderius wrote to me:

    Given the other gross environmental damage of runaway globalism, it is prudent to be biased on the side of those advocating the human piece. That said, that piece could still turn out to be infinitesimally small relative to other factors (solar cycles, et al).
     
    Yeah, one good way to get all the kooks on both sides angry at you is to point out that it really might be true that anthropogenic CO2 accounts for 10% of global warming and natural phenomena account for the other 90%.

    The climate hysterics get angry at anyone who makes the legitimate point that human effects might be rather minor. The scientifically illiterate "denialists" get angry at the idea that humans might affect the climate at all.

    I should reiterate the point someone made earlier: the real problem with the modeling efforts so far is that their predictions have not agreed with observations. Scientifically, that is a killer.

    This does not mean that the research is fraudulent. The whole climate system is incredibly complex -- e.g., modeling clouds is an almost impossible nightmare. Legitimate scientific research is, by its nature, really hard. That climate modeling has, so far, been unsuccessful is not surprising.

    The problem is the people who take this ongoing research effort and treat the tentative (and, so far, wrong) results as if they are proven dogma.

    The scientifically illiterate “denialists” get angry at the idea that humans might affect the climate at all.

    Not my experience. Doesn’t matter, they have no seat at the table.

    This does not mean that the research is fraudulent. The whole climate system is incredibly complex

    Exactly. It’s a young science and one dealing with questions well beyond the capacity of current mathematics (highly non-linear systems), which both make the appeal to unanimity absolutely daft to anyone with the most basic experience of how science works.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Desiderius wrote to me:

    [Dave] The scientifically illiterate “denialists” get angry at the idea that humans might affect the climate at all.

    [Desi] Not my experience. Doesn’t matter, they have no seat at the table.
     
    Well, people like you and me get labeled "denialists" just because we point out that the science is still a work in progress.

    But, have you dealt with any of the really hard-core denialists?

    The guys who claim that there can never be any energy flow at all from cold to hot objects, for example?

    Of course, the net flow is indeed from hot to cold, but there is heat flow from cold to hot also: it's just that the flow from hot to cold is greater than from cold to hot, so that the net flow is in the direction it should be. And then they go on about how clouds are colder than the ground, so clouds cannot re-radiate any heat at all back towards the ground? And on and on and on.

    I suspect you yourself just ignore these guys and let it go.

    But, I have actually tried to engage them, often in concert with fellow scientists. Not a good idea.

    Strangely, some of them actually claim to be engineers, and claim they understand "heat transfer." They almost never claim to be physical scientists.

    If these guys did take "heat transfer," they should have flunked.

    I and other scientists have tried to explain to these guys the very straightforward analysis that if the earth is better insulated, the earth has to get hotter so that it can punch through the greater insulation and transmit the same amount of heat out into space.

    Should be obvious to anyone who has ever used a blanket!

    But, invariably, I have found that such fellows get very, bizarrely abusive.

    As Schiller said, "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain."

    (For anyone interested in pursuing this, the locus classicus seems to be the book Slaying the Sky Dragon by John O'Sullivan et al. A few years ago, some of O'Sullivan's fans were active in commenting on Judith Curry's blog that I mentioned above. Judith knows they are nuts, but she maintains a very open comments policy.)
  116. @obwandiyag
    The little ice age was caused by the massive die-off of 10s of millions of American Indians. Sorry.

    global warmingists claim neither the little ice age nor the 800 to 1100 AD global warming age ever happened.

  117. Maybe things have changed since I got a pass grade in Geography in Scotland in the early 1970s, but isn’t the Yukon important for the Chinook salmon fisheries?

  118. @Barnard
    I take the idea of global warming seriously, but not the people who have proposed solutions to fix it.

    I’m no expert, but I take the idea of Global Warming seriously because it appears that glaciers in both Europe and the United States have visibly receded over my lifetime.

    Please chill Steve while enjoying a bottle of wine and watching this again…

    One of your Rice U. alumni buddies has a wonderful blog on the BS of global warming.

    https://realclimatescience.com

    • LOL: PhysicistDave
  119. From the BBC’s QI team:

    The total amount of water ever drunk by humans would add 0.1 to the depths of Earth’s oceans.

    • Replies: @James Speaks

    The total amount of water ever drunk by humans would add 0.1 to the depths of Earth’s oceans.
     
    Unless all those individuals are still holding it in, that liquid volume has already returned to the oceans.
  120. @peterike
    PhysicistDave and Jack D should get a room. Then they can work out who is the most tiresomely pompous and self-important.

    If I had Jack D or PDs scope of knowledge I’d probably be a bit pompous also. I feel sure Sailer welcomes their inputs on a great variety of subjects. A blog like Sailer’s would not last long if 100IQs were the main contributors. These two lads are Mensa plus.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    A mark of a truly great intellect is that it's worn lightly. Neither of those 'two lads' manages that, though I admit Jack sometimes comes close.
  121. @stillCARealist
    Say what? Yes, it's been a wet winter here this year, but Old Yeller speaks much truth. In my area of Northern CA, we have "scrub oaks" and "scrub brush" everywhere. It's a handy way to describe flora and fauna that can survive during long droughts, including the 6 months each year when it doesn't rain.

    The reason CA is so fertile and productive is the water planning of our forefathers who built the dams and reservoirs and canals and levies and pumps... environmentalists, in their purest forms, would tear all that apart in seconds.

    “desert” is an overstatement for most of CA. Desert is sometimes defined as less than 10 inches of rain per year. Here is an annual rainfall map (inches) of CA:

    But you make a good point about the dry months. And the proportion of CA which supports intense agriculture and/or high population density with less than 20 local inches of rain per year is pretty amazing.

    London makes an interesting contrast with 23 inches of rain per year. It’s just spread out relatively evenly over the year.
    https://www.tripsavvy.com/wettest-cities-usa-vs-rainy-london-3975248

  122. @AnotherDad

    Exactly. But even if the population reaches one billion by the end of this century as its intended to, once the productive whites die off the racial pigsty that will be N. America will implode. There won’t be any free shit, free food and free medical care financed by whitey and there will be a mass die off of the bipedal life forms squatting on the carcass of a rotting America and Canada.
     
    Not true. No mass die off.

    This is one of those "future" prediction cases where we have a reasonably good model of what America is morphing into--Brazil.

    Only if these white haters persist with their open borders madness and Steve's "world's most important graph" kicks in will zip on past Brazil. Even then a mass die off is unlikely. Even then we still have a reasonable model of what the US looks like--Africa.

    Not true. No mass die off.

    Boomer optimism is touching, but yes there will be when whites are 15% or less of the population. How will they produce sufficient food when most of the arable farm land has been plowed over with shanty towns for third world bipeds or when the white genius in the American farming and agriculture industry is lost? When American currency is worthless on the world market how will the coffee colored bipeds import food from food producing nations?

    Brazil is still nearly 50% white so there’s still plenty of them to keep the lights on and producing so the nation doesn’t starve to death. America nearing the end of the 21st century won’t be anywhere near 50% whites if current trends hold and the 10-15% of whites that might still exist could only dream of a time when they were still 50% of the population.

  123. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    I first learned about global warming from my great-grandmother back in the '60s based on her own life experiences.

    There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    And, as a physics student and later a Ph.D. physicist, I have been following the global-climate modelling efforts for nearly fifty years.

    Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    But, exactly what fraction of global warming is due to human action and what fraction to natural causes (the Little Ice Age was presumably not caused by human action)? That is a very hard question scientifically, and the answer is highly uncertain.

    And, even worse, what will the future of global climate be? Even harder to answer scientifically: as the saying has it, "Prediction is hard, especially of the future!"

    Anyone who wants to pursue this in more detail with someone who knows incredibly more about the subject than I should check out Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. blog. Judith is former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, and, I am happy to say, more or less agrees with my conclusions stated above.

    This subject tends to generate a lot of heat (u intentional pun) and very little light. There are a few things we know for certain and a couple of others that we can assume.

    CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas and it was historically below 300 ppm. Last time I checked, it had risen to about 410 ppm.

    The effect of doubling CO2 is pretty well established, though it could take a long time for the earth system to reach equilibrium.

    Oceans store heat and this creates a lag in average land temps.

    Warmer average temperatures change global circulation patterns. Hadley cells move further north (and south in the southern hemisphere) and expand. Thus, larger swath of desert.

    Higher average air temps cause higher soil temps cause decrease in soil moisture causes decrease in crop yields causes famine causes more people to move north.

    Different factors caused climate changes in the past, but none as rapidly as the current CO2 forcing.

    Computer models are complex; they are getting better. Consistently, actual measurements show that predicted changes occur more rapidly than models predict.

    The details of sea level rise include ocean currents and displacement of mass from Antarctic to everywhere causes greater sea level rise in North America than elsewhere. It only takes six inches or so to ruin many coastal cities as desirable places to live cause internal migration causes strife.

    The one billion souls threatened with extinction when glaciers fail to provide adequate water in summer live in SE Asia. Our problem is that at least three nations there have nukes.

    Changes in rainfall patterns turn the SE US into the SW, the SW completely arid, and extend the arid zone northward into the grain producing heartland of North America.

    There’s more, a lot more. None of this happens on cue to disprove a denialist, which is good. The last thing I want to do is to convince a denialist that he/she/it is living on the edge of a precipice. But when the preponderance of information all suggest the same thing, and that is a radical change in the support structure of our civilization, then a prudent individual takes note.

    Belief has nothing to do with it. I believe in the law a gravity. I understand that if I drop a bowling ball on my foot, it will hurt.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Several of your claims are completely decontextualized.

    If you're interested in convincing anyone you'll need to provide that context and engage with others who have done so in a way that contests your conclusions.

    , @Prodigal son
    H2O is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth.

    All the models are based on an increase in H2O in the atmosphere

    CO2 has a a minor greenhouse gas, doubling CO2 alone results in very little warming,
    , @Prodigal son
    CO2 levels on Earth have been much higher in the past. Ice ages have started when CO2 levels were 2000 ppm and the last Ice age ended when CO2 levels were 250 ppm.

    The Earth’s climate is always changing. The medieval warming period occurred from 950 to 125o. We know preindustrial temperatures exceeded current global temperatures , despite the lower CO2 levels.

    Higher levels of CO2 increased crop yields and is one reason the Earth has been getting greener. The green vegetation on planet Earth has increased by 14% over the last 30 years due to higher levels of CO2.

    A warmer climate , with higher levels of CO2 brings tremendous benefits to humanity.

    , @PhysicistDave
    Jimmy Speaks wrote to me:

    Computer models are complex; they are getting better. Consistently, actual measurements show that predicted changes occur more rapidly than models predict.
     
    Well, at least we now have solid proof that our Jimmy is not a scientist!

    How can you know that computer models are getting better?????

    If you have enough parameters you can fit any finite data set. Exactly. Even only using polynomials. Look up "Lagrange interpolation."

    The question is: can you predict data you do not yet have?

    Prediction is hard, especially of the future.

    And, by that standard of the scientific method, the models have failed.

    The Big Issue in the last couple decades is the so-called "Pause."

    The models did not predict it.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.

    Yes, yes, I know people have re-tweaked the data to make the models' predictions look better. That is a techniques that grade-school kids refer to as "cheating."

    If you have to move the goalposts after your kick has failed, you didn't really make it.

    Maybe someday we will have models that can actually prove their accuracy by making accourate predictions of future data.

    But not yet.
  124. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    I first learned about global warming from my great-grandmother back in the '60s based on her own life experiences.

    There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    And, as a physics student and later a Ph.D. physicist, I have been following the global-climate modelling efforts for nearly fifty years.

    Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    But, exactly what fraction of global warming is due to human action and what fraction to natural causes (the Little Ice Age was presumably not caused by human action)? That is a very hard question scientifically, and the answer is highly uncertain.

    And, even worse, what will the future of global climate be? Even harder to answer scientifically: as the saying has it, "Prediction is hard, especially of the future!"

    Anyone who wants to pursue this in more detail with someone who knows incredibly more about the subject than I should check out Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. blog. Judith is former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, and, I am happy to say, more or less agrees with my conclusions stated above.

    Yet the earth was cooling from 1942-1979 , so it is strange your grandmother thought it was warming. This is why Global cooling was the concern in the 1970s.

    in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934 according to NASA.
    in 1999, James Hansen, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato of GISS published a paper, “GISS analysis of surface temperature change”, which included a graph of the US temperature record at that time. The drop in temperatures from the 1930s to the 1970s is absolutely clear.

    The paper commented:
    The U.S. temperature increased by about 0.8°C between the 1880s and the 1930s, but it then fell by about 0.7°C between 1940 and the 1970s and regained only about 0.3°C of this between the 1970s and the 1990s. The year 1998 was the warmest year of recent decades in the United States, but in general, U.S. temperatures have not recovered even to the level that existed in the 1930s. The warmest years on record for the United states were listed as 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1998. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/how-the-us-temperature-record-has-changed/

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Travis wrote to me:

    Yet the earth was cooling from 1942-1979 , so it is strange your grandmother thought it was warming. This is why Global cooling was the concern in the 1970s.
     
    Well, I talked with her in the '60s. She died before 1979 and was probably not paying much attention to climate in her later years!

    What Great Grandma said specifically was that the Mississippi used to freeze over routinely between Missouri and Illinois in her childhood in the late nineteenth century, but it was not doing so in my childhood in the '50s and '60s. What I have seen of historical records backs this up. It did freeze over once when I was a young adult, which shocked everyone.

    Grandma was, of course, not a climate scientist, so she was not looking at detailed numerical data decade by decade. She was just relating what she had seen herself.
  125. @Reg Cæsar
    From the BBC's QI team:

    The total amount of water ever drunk by humans would add 0.1 to the depths of Earth's oceans.

    The total amount of water ever drunk by humans would add 0.1 to the depths of Earth’s oceans.

    Unless all those individuals are still holding it in, that liquid volume has already returned to the oceans.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    That should read 0.1 inch.
  126. @James Speaks

    The total amount of water ever drunk by humans would add 0.1 to the depths of Earth’s oceans.
     
    Unless all those individuals are still holding it in, that liquid volume has already returned to the oceans.

    That should read 0.1 inch.

  127. @Simply Simon
    If I had Jack D or PDs scope of knowledge I'd probably be a bit pompous also. I feel sure Sailer welcomes their inputs on a great variety of subjects. A blog like Sailer's would not last long if 100IQs were the main contributors. These two lads are Mensa plus.

    A mark of a truly great intellect is that it’s worn lightly. Neither of those ‘two lads’ manages that, though I admit Jack sometimes comes close.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Mr. McKenna wrote:

    A mark of a truly great intellect is that it’s worn lightly. Neither of those ‘two lads’ manages that, though I admit Jack sometimes comes close.
     
    Nope. I took classes from Richard Feynman. He was a great intellect, but not a modest man.

    If you're smart, no reason to hide your light under a bushel.

    You, on the other hand, should be modest, because you have so much to be modest about.
    , @JMcG
    Physicist Dave is, to the extent that one can know anything about those we engage with on the Internet, a Cal Tech trained working Physicist. I generally regard very highly anything that he has to say about the physical world. I believe that he has also thought deeply about many things and feel that he adds a great deal to the conversation here.
    Jack, with the same caveat, is a trained lawyer. I think he adds a lot of value to the many discussions here that center on legal issues.
    I hope that this recent piling on that these two have been subject to doesn’t have the effect of driving them from the forum.
    I would hate for iSteve to turn into the old TakiMag forum.
    I’ve gone on many a journey of discovery after reading some nugget in a comment here.
    On the other hand, it’s easy to block those commenters who really grind your gears. It makes for a much more pleasant experience to pass easily by some of the most valueless dreck.
  128. @James Speaks
    This subject tends to generate a lot of heat (u intentional pun) and very little light. There are a few things we know for certain and a couple of others that we can assume.

    CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas and it was historically below 300 ppm. Last time I checked, it had risen to about 410 ppm.

    The effect of doubling CO2 is pretty well established, though it could take a long time for the earth system to reach equilibrium.

    Oceans store heat and this creates a lag in average land temps.

    Warmer average temperatures change global circulation patterns. Hadley cells move further north (and south in the southern hemisphere) and expand. Thus, larger swath of desert.

    Higher average air temps cause higher soil temps cause decrease in soil moisture causes decrease in crop yields causes famine causes more people to move north.

    Different factors caused climate changes in the past, but none as rapidly as the current CO2 forcing.

    Computer models are complex; they are getting better. Consistently, actual measurements show that predicted changes occur more rapidly than models predict.

    The details of sea level rise include ocean currents and displacement of mass from Antarctic to everywhere causes greater sea level rise in North America than elsewhere. It only takes six inches or so to ruin many coastal cities as desirable places to live cause internal migration causes strife.

    The one billion souls threatened with extinction when glaciers fail to provide adequate water in summer live in SE Asia. Our problem is that at least three nations there have nukes.

    Changes in rainfall patterns turn the SE US into the SW, the SW completely arid, and extend the arid zone northward into the grain producing heartland of North America.

    There's more, a lot more. None of this happens on cue to disprove a denialist, which is good. The last thing I want to do is to convince a denialist that he/she/it is living on the edge of a precipice. But when the preponderance of information all suggest the same thing, and that is a radical change in the support structure of our civilization, then a prudent individual takes note.

    Belief has nothing to do with it. I believe in the law a gravity. I understand that if I drop a bowling ball on my foot, it will hurt.

    Several of your claims are completely decontextualized.

    If you’re interested in convincing anyone you’ll need to provide that context and engage with others who have done so in a way that contests your conclusions.

    • Replies: @James Speaks
    I'm not interested in convincing anyone.
  129. @Desiderius
    Several of your claims are completely decontextualized.

    If you're interested in convincing anyone you'll need to provide that context and engage with others who have done so in a way that contests your conclusions.

    I’m not interested in convincing anyone.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    And that about wraps things up, thanks everyone for playing the boot to a human face forever game yet again.
  130. @Robert Hume
    There are Caltech scientists who have convincingly shown that most glacier and ice melting is due to greater absorption of energy from the sun because of deposition human-caused soot and of dust from plowing.

    This theory is accepted and intensively studied by most of the relevant scientists in China and India. They are concerned because most of their water comes from melting glaciers.


    These causes of warming can be much more easily and effectively reduced then can the warming due to carbon dioxide.

    This theory is accepted and intensively studied by most of the relevant scientists in China and India. They are concerned because most of their water comes from melting glaciers.

    That sounds like useful information. Those folks in China and India should get right on it. They and their fellow overpopulated neighbors are THE major polluters on the planet, by far.

  131. @AnotherDad
    Good comment Bill. Didn't realize you were up Bellingham way.


    Glaciers are not some magical water source, that creates water. Water comes from the same old, same old--rain and snow. Glaciers are a water store. They move water--river flows--in time. In the steady state they basically move river flows from winter/spring to spring/summer/fall. That can be good or bad for humans depending on what the rainfall pattern is in a particular.

    Long term glaciers move water from "cold times" to "warm times". So global warming actually produces more water as glaciers release water "stolen" from prior centuries, millenia.

    If humans like the water storage/time-management that glaciers provide they can always do it themselves. They are called "dams".

    ~~

    And spot on on the Younger Dryas. Warming we can tolerate. It's the return of the Ice Age that would be a whoop ass. Civilization is a big Holocene party ... the ice comes back ... the party's over!

    Yep, been up here in Bellingham for five years. Finally had it with Seattle. Now when I go back to visit my folks I feel relieved that I left when I did. Quality of life has really taken a nosedive down there.

  132. @James Speaks
    This subject tends to generate a lot of heat (u intentional pun) and very little light. There are a few things we know for certain and a couple of others that we can assume.

    CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas and it was historically below 300 ppm. Last time I checked, it had risen to about 410 ppm.

    The effect of doubling CO2 is pretty well established, though it could take a long time for the earth system to reach equilibrium.

    Oceans store heat and this creates a lag in average land temps.

    Warmer average temperatures change global circulation patterns. Hadley cells move further north (and south in the southern hemisphere) and expand. Thus, larger swath of desert.

    Higher average air temps cause higher soil temps cause decrease in soil moisture causes decrease in crop yields causes famine causes more people to move north.

    Different factors caused climate changes in the past, but none as rapidly as the current CO2 forcing.

    Computer models are complex; they are getting better. Consistently, actual measurements show that predicted changes occur more rapidly than models predict.

    The details of sea level rise include ocean currents and displacement of mass from Antarctic to everywhere causes greater sea level rise in North America than elsewhere. It only takes six inches or so to ruin many coastal cities as desirable places to live cause internal migration causes strife.

    The one billion souls threatened with extinction when glaciers fail to provide adequate water in summer live in SE Asia. Our problem is that at least three nations there have nukes.

    Changes in rainfall patterns turn the SE US into the SW, the SW completely arid, and extend the arid zone northward into the grain producing heartland of North America.

    There's more, a lot more. None of this happens on cue to disprove a denialist, which is good. The last thing I want to do is to convince a denialist that he/she/it is living on the edge of a precipice. But when the preponderance of information all suggest the same thing, and that is a radical change in the support structure of our civilization, then a prudent individual takes note.

    Belief has nothing to do with it. I believe in the law a gravity. I understand that if I drop a bowling ball on my foot, it will hurt.

    H2O is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth.

    All the models are based on an increase in H2O in the atmosphere

    CO2 has a a minor greenhouse gas, doubling CO2 alone results in very little warming,

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Prodigal son wrote:

    H2O is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth.

    All the models are based on an increase in H2O in the atmosphere

    CO2 has a a minor greenhouse gas, doubling CO2 alone results in very little warming,

     

    We should add that essentially all scientists on all sides of the debate agree with what you posted.

    The question is how much additional H2O do you get? And in what form (water vapor, different sorts of clouds, etc.)?

    The answer is "weather," and it is difficult to model weather accurately in a milieu in which our basic assumption is that global parameters have changed from the values corresponding to our actual historical data on weather.

    Especially clouds. Clouds of different sorts and at different levels in the atmosphere can produce either positive or negative feedbacks.

    My best friend from high school was involved in some of the early work on modeling of cloud formation back in the early '70s. Doug would go on and on and on about how modeling cloud formation accurately was close to impossible (he was particularly fond of rambling on about "stiff diff equs").

    It is still a largely intractable problem. And, if you can't get the clouds right, you can't get the models right.

    Which seems to be the case.
    , @James Speaks

    H2O is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth.
     
    Yes, but rain happens.

    My use of the word "primary" was poorly thought out. CO2 is the primary climate forcing greenhouse gas. H2O vapor levels increase with warming temps, but it's CO2 that is forcing this change.
  133. @James Speaks
    This subject tends to generate a lot of heat (u intentional pun) and very little light. There are a few things we know for certain and a couple of others that we can assume.

    CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas and it was historically below 300 ppm. Last time I checked, it had risen to about 410 ppm.

    The effect of doubling CO2 is pretty well established, though it could take a long time for the earth system to reach equilibrium.

    Oceans store heat and this creates a lag in average land temps.

    Warmer average temperatures change global circulation patterns. Hadley cells move further north (and south in the southern hemisphere) and expand. Thus, larger swath of desert.

    Higher average air temps cause higher soil temps cause decrease in soil moisture causes decrease in crop yields causes famine causes more people to move north.

    Different factors caused climate changes in the past, but none as rapidly as the current CO2 forcing.

    Computer models are complex; they are getting better. Consistently, actual measurements show that predicted changes occur more rapidly than models predict.

    The details of sea level rise include ocean currents and displacement of mass from Antarctic to everywhere causes greater sea level rise in North America than elsewhere. It only takes six inches or so to ruin many coastal cities as desirable places to live cause internal migration causes strife.

    The one billion souls threatened with extinction when glaciers fail to provide adequate water in summer live in SE Asia. Our problem is that at least three nations there have nukes.

    Changes in rainfall patterns turn the SE US into the SW, the SW completely arid, and extend the arid zone northward into the grain producing heartland of North America.

    There's more, a lot more. None of this happens on cue to disprove a denialist, which is good. The last thing I want to do is to convince a denialist that he/she/it is living on the edge of a precipice. But when the preponderance of information all suggest the same thing, and that is a radical change in the support structure of our civilization, then a prudent individual takes note.

    Belief has nothing to do with it. I believe in the law a gravity. I understand that if I drop a bowling ball on my foot, it will hurt.

    CO2 levels on Earth have been much higher in the past. Ice ages have started when CO2 levels were 2000 ppm and the last Ice age ended when CO2 levels were 250 ppm.

    The Earth’s climate is always changing. The medieval warming period occurred from 950 to 125o. We know preindustrial temperatures exceeded current global temperatures , despite the lower CO2 levels.

    Higher levels of CO2 increased crop yields and is one reason the Earth has been getting greener. The green vegetation on planet Earth has increased by 14% over the last 30 years due to higher levels of CO2.

    A warmer climate , with higher levels of CO2 brings tremendous benefits to humanity.

  134. @Desiderius

    The scientifically illiterate “denialists” get angry at the idea that humans might affect the climate at all.
     
    Not my experience. Doesn't matter, they have no seat at the table.

    This does not mean that the research is fraudulent. The whole climate system is incredibly complex
     
    Exactly. It's a young science and one dealing with questions well beyond the capacity of current mathematics (highly non-linear systems), which both make the appeal to unanimity absolutely daft to anyone with the most basic experience of how science works.

    Desiderius wrote to me:

    [Dave] The scientifically illiterate “denialists” get angry at the idea that humans might affect the climate at all.

    [Desi] Not my experience. Doesn’t matter, they have no seat at the table.

    Well, people like you and me get labeled “denialists” just because we point out that the science is still a work in progress.

    But, have you dealt with any of the really hard-core denialists?

    The guys who claim that there can never be any energy flow at all from cold to hot objects, for example?

    Of course, the net flow is indeed from hot to cold, but there is heat flow from cold to hot also: it’s just that the flow from hot to cold is greater than from cold to hot, so that the net flow is in the direction it should be. And then they go on about how clouds are colder than the ground, so clouds cannot re-radiate any heat at all back towards the ground? And on and on and on.

    I suspect you yourself just ignore these guys and let it go.

    But, I have actually tried to engage them, often in concert with fellow scientists. Not a good idea.

    Strangely, some of them actually claim to be engineers, and claim they understand “heat transfer.” They almost never claim to be physical scientists.

    If these guys did take “heat transfer,” they should have flunked.

    I and other scientists have tried to explain to these guys the very straightforward analysis that if the earth is better insulated, the earth has to get hotter so that it can punch through the greater insulation and transmit the same amount of heat out into space.

    Should be obvious to anyone who has ever used a blanket!

    But, invariably, I have found that such fellows get very, bizarrely abusive.

    As Schiller said, “Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.”

    (For anyone interested in pursuing this, the locus classicus seems to be the book Slaying the Sky Dragon by John O’Sullivan et al. A few years ago, some of O’Sullivan’s fans were active in commenting on Judith Curry’s blog that I mentioned above. Judith knows they are nuts, but she maintains a very open comments policy.)

  135. @Prodigal son
    H2O is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth.

    All the models are based on an increase in H2O in the atmosphere

    CO2 has a a minor greenhouse gas, doubling CO2 alone results in very little warming,

    Prodigal son wrote:

    H2O is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth.

    All the models are based on an increase in H2O in the atmosphere

    CO2 has a a minor greenhouse gas, doubling CO2 alone results in very little warming,

    We should add that essentially all scientists on all sides of the debate agree with what you posted.

    The question is how much additional H2O do you get? And in what form (water vapor, different sorts of clouds, etc.)?

    The answer is “weather,” and it is difficult to model weather accurately in a milieu in which our basic assumption is that global parameters have changed from the values corresponding to our actual historical data on weather.

    Especially clouds. Clouds of different sorts and at different levels in the atmosphere can produce either positive or negative feedbacks.

    My best friend from high school was involved in some of the early work on modeling of cloud formation back in the early ’70s. Doug would go on and on and on about how modeling cloud formation accurately was close to impossible (he was particularly fond of rambling on about “stiff diff equs”).

    It is still a largely intractable problem. And, if you can’t get the clouds right, you can’t get the models right.

    Which seems to be the case.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    “stiff diff equs”

    Diff equs (pronounced Diffy Qs) is the colloquial term for differential equations, which is the heart of the beast on the math end (i.e. highly nonlinear). We could really use a Galois to come along and give us a better sense of the (im)possible.
  136. @Mr McKenna
    A mark of a truly great intellect is that it's worn lightly. Neither of those 'two lads' manages that, though I admit Jack sometimes comes close.

    Mr. McKenna wrote:

    A mark of a truly great intellect is that it’s worn lightly. Neither of those ‘two lads’ manages that, though I admit Jack sometimes comes close.

    Nope. I took classes from Richard Feynman. He was a great intellect, but not a modest man.

    If you’re smart, no reason to hide your light under a bushel.

    You, on the other hand, should be modest, because you have so much to be modest about.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    He was a great intellect
     
    Indeed. Strangely low IQ though. Curious.
    , @Mr McKenna
    Good one! You can't even figure out what's so very sad about bragging on the internet when it's explained to you. You don't even understand what 'worn lightly' means! But never mind, it's sort of fun watching you dig your hole deeper like that.
  137. @Travis
    Yet the earth was cooling from 1942-1979 , so it is strange your grandmother thought it was warming. This is why Global cooling was the concern in the 1970s.

    in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934 according to NASA.
    in 1999, James Hansen, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato of GISS published a paper, “GISS analysis of surface temperature change”, which included a graph of the US temperature record at that time. The drop in temperatures from the 1930s to the 1970s is absolutely clear.

    The paper commented:
    The U.S. temperature increased by about 0.8°C between the 1880s and the 1930s, but it then fell by about 0.7°C between 1940 and the 1970s and regained only about 0.3°C of this between the 1970s and the 1990s. The year 1998 was the warmest year of recent decades in the United States, but in general, U.S. temperatures have not recovered even to the level that existed in the 1930s. The warmest years on record for the United states were listed as 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1998. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/how-the-us-temperature-record-has-changed/

    Travis wrote to me:

    Yet the earth was cooling from 1942-1979 , so it is strange your grandmother thought it was warming. This is why Global cooling was the concern in the 1970s.

    Well, I talked with her in the ’60s. She died before 1979 and was probably not paying much attention to climate in her later years!

    What Great Grandma said specifically was that the Mississippi used to freeze over routinely between Missouri and Illinois in her childhood in the late nineteenth century, but it was not doing so in my childhood in the ’50s and ’60s. What I have seen of historical records backs this up. It did freeze over once when I was a young adult, which shocked everyone.

    Grandma was, of course, not a climate scientist, so she was not looking at detailed numerical data decade by decade. She was just relating what she had seen herself.

  138. @Prodigal son
    H2O is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth.

    All the models are based on an increase in H2O in the atmosphere

    CO2 has a a minor greenhouse gas, doubling CO2 alone results in very little warming,

    H2O is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth.

    Yes, but rain happens.

    My use of the word “primary” was poorly thought out. CO2 is the primary climate forcing greenhouse gas. H2O vapor levels increase with warming temps, but it’s CO2 that is forcing this change.

  139. @PhysicistDave
    The Anti-Gnotic wrote to me:

    [Dave] There is indeed no doubt the globe has warmed in the last two centuries.

    [TAG} Yes. Cities are hotter than farmland, which is hotter than forest.
     

    The urban heat-island effect. But, even putting that aside, there is no doubt the globe has warmed. Back around 1700, we were in the middle of the Little Ice Age. We're not now.

    By the way, the main people now trying to deny the LIA and the Medieval Warm Period seem to be the global-warming hysterics: those facts spoil their narrative that climate change is all the fault of humans.

    TAG also wrote:


    [Dave] Again, almost no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming.

    [TAG] So we are told, but like somebody mentioned up thread, nobody acts like CO2 is the actual problem.
     

    The physics on this is very simple: the only people who deny this are people who did not take (or did not understand) frosh physics. I literally know of no actual physical scientist who denies that anthropogenic CO2 produces some warming (I do know of some engineers -- but engineers are not scientists: consider Bill Nye, the not-science guy).

    TAG also wrote:


    The experts in the field aren’t acting like CO2-global warming is the problem.
     
    Well, there just is not any serious evidence that global warming is going to be catastrophic: it almost certainly will not destroy human civilization, much less the biosphere. Anyone who is not actually following the real scientific research is just going to hear the Oprahesque nonsense in the mass media, which is all just hot air (pardon the pun).

    Climate change does happen -- always has and always will -- and it is a legitimate subject for scientific research. I got interested in the subject, just out of curiosity, decades before it became politicized.

    Unfortunately, a legitimate scientific matter has been latched on to for political purposes, pretty much as the Nazis latched on to Darwinism.

    The physics on this is very simple:

    Okay, refer me to the reproducible experiments which demonstrate this simple physics.

    I don’t doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas–that’s how you get Venus after all– but I suspect it’s a small part of a much bigger problem. Focus on CO2 is a deflection, which was Michael Crichton’s opinion.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    The Anti-Gnostic wrote to me:


    [Dave]The physics on this is very simple:
     
    TAG: Okay, refer me to the reproducible experiments which demonstrate this simple physics.

    I don’t doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas–that’s how you get Venus after all– but I suspect it’s a small part of a much bigger problem. Focus on CO2 is a deflection, which was Michael Crichton’s opinion.
     
    Well... anyone who passed frosh physics is supposed to understand why getting under a blanket is that experiment!

    I think you probably misunderstood me, though. I meant that anthropogenic CO2 does indeed make the globe warmer, but I do not think (and it certainly is not true!) that it is the only thing that makes the globe warmer.

    I know of no one who claims the Medieval Warm Period was due to anthropogeenic CO2, and, it would be weird to attribute the Little Ice Age to human behavior.

    So, yeah, lots of stuff going on: changes in the earth's orbital parameters, solar variability, centuries long-oscillations in the climate system, perhaps stuff no one has thought of yet.

    What makes science interesting is that you cannot just do computer simulations: you actually have to compare your theories and calculations to the real world, and, quite commonly, Nature is rather more subtle than we thought.

    The truth is, so far the climate simulations have done very badly at predicting empirical reality.

    We're missing something. Reality is complicated.

    To a scientist, that is exciting. To people with political axes to grind -- well, they tend not to be good at handling the unknown.
    , @Prodigal son
    The atmosphere of Venus is 96% CO2 while here in Earth CO2 is a trace gas , just .04% CO2 today

    In the past , before the ice age began, CO2 concentrations reached 2% on Earth, yet this did not prevent the Ice Age.

    The current climate models predicting the warming of the earth assume that if we double CO2 concentrations to .08% the climate will warm, but this is due to an assumption that increased CO2 will result in an increase of H2O in our atmosphere....the models assume the increased levels of CO2 will not be the primary cause of the warming, because CO2 alone cannot warm the planet enough for humans to even notice. C02 is a weak greenhouse gas. Thus the models assume increased CO2 levels will increase H2O while simultaneously reducing cloud cover, since clouds actually block much of the solar energy from reaching Earth, thus having a cooling effect. So the models all assume The worst possible outcomes from increased CO2, both an increase in H2O and a decrease in clouds.

    Yet the models all failed to predict the lack of warming since 1998. Despite increased CO2 levels , the average temperature of our planet has remained stable for 20 years now. The reported record high of 2016 is statistically equivalent to 1998.

    Will it take another 20 years of no warming before the hoax is exposed?
  140. @James Speaks
    I'm not interested in convincing anyone.

    And that about wraps things up, thanks everyone for playing the boot to a human face forever game yet again.

    • Replies: @James Speaks
    You like to sound important and knowledgeable. Apparently it is a need that you have.
  141. @PhysicistDave
    Mr. McKenna wrote:

    A mark of a truly great intellect is that it’s worn lightly. Neither of those ‘two lads’ manages that, though I admit Jack sometimes comes close.
     
    Nope. I took classes from Richard Feynman. He was a great intellect, but not a modest man.

    If you're smart, no reason to hide your light under a bushel.

    You, on the other hand, should be modest, because you have so much to be modest about.

    He was a great intellect

    Indeed. Strangely low IQ though. Curious.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Desiderius wrote to me:


    [Dave]: [Feynman] was a great intellect
     
    [Desiderius]: Indeed. Strangely low IQ though. Curious.
     
    My guess is that the IQ test he took was not well validated or properly conducted: my own knowledge of my IQ (supposedly much higher than Feynman's) came from a test casually given by a friend who was taking a graduate course on how to give IQ tests. His results were consistent with other info I have (e.g., SAT and GRE scores), but I have no idea (I don't really care) if he really knew what he was doing.

    I.e., I'm more than a bit skeptical that my IQ is really higher than Feynman's.

    Also, I think Sailer has said that you need an IQ of about 120 to get a Nobel: the rest is a big heaping of luck and a huge amount of very hard work. I knew Feynman over four years, including two years of formal classes, and I've grown more familiar with lots of his work since.

    He loved to tell anecdotes of himself that made it sound as if he was just a happy-go-lucky kid who stumbled upon important discoveries. But, in truth, he worked very hard.
  142. @PhysicistDave
    Prodigal son wrote:

    H2O is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth.

    All the models are based on an increase in H2O in the atmosphere

    CO2 has a a minor greenhouse gas, doubling CO2 alone results in very little warming,

     

    We should add that essentially all scientists on all sides of the debate agree with what you posted.

    The question is how much additional H2O do you get? And in what form (water vapor, different sorts of clouds, etc.)?

    The answer is "weather," and it is difficult to model weather accurately in a milieu in which our basic assumption is that global parameters have changed from the values corresponding to our actual historical data on weather.

    Especially clouds. Clouds of different sorts and at different levels in the atmosphere can produce either positive or negative feedbacks.

    My best friend from high school was involved in some of the early work on modeling of cloud formation back in the early '70s. Doug would go on and on and on about how modeling cloud formation accurately was close to impossible (he was particularly fond of rambling on about "stiff diff equs").

    It is still a largely intractable problem. And, if you can't get the clouds right, you can't get the models right.

    Which seems to be the case.

    “stiff diff equs”

    Diff equs (pronounced Diffy Qs) is the colloquial term for differential equations, which is the heart of the beast on the math end (i.e. highly nonlinear). We could really use a Galois to come along and give us a better sense of the (im)possible.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Desiderius wrote to me:

    Diff equs (pronounced Diffy Qs) is the colloquial term for differential equations, which is the heart of the beast on the math end (i.e. highly nonlinear). We could really use a Galois to come along and give us a better sense of the (im)possible.
     
    There actualluy is a Galois theory of differential equations: I've never had time to learn it, and so I don't know how it connects with the classical Galois theory of algebraic numbers.

    My guess is that if it were really helpful in solving actual diff equs, we'd all know a lot more about it. For now, I'm afraid it's way down on my "to-do" list, well below brushing up on and actually mastering Russian.
  143. @obwandiyag
    Pro-nukes are the most evil persons in the entire world. May they rot in hell.

    LOL. How humane do you think things will be when 7 billion humans start burning wood in a desperate hunt for caloric energy?

  144. @Desiderius
    And that about wraps things up, thanks everyone for playing the boot to a human face forever game yet again.

    You like to sound important and knowledgeable. Apparently it is a need that you have.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Those who make the arguments you make but who are not interested in persuasion are instead interested in domination.

    They’ve been very successful at that, so it is unsurprising that they’ve gathered a mob behind them. Spade a spade.
    , @PhysicistDave
    James Speaks wrote to Desiderius:

    You like to sound important and knowledgeable. Apparently it is a need that you have.
     
    Hmmm... Y'know, sometimes I agree with Desiderius, sometimes I disagree.

    But, sometimes people sound important because what they have to say is important. Sometimes, they sound knowledgeable because they are knowledgeable.

    I've taken classes from or worked with five Nobel laureates. They all sounded pretty knowledgeable.

    Because they were.

    Your attack on Desiderius sort of missed its target.

    If you want to criticize him for sounding knowledgeable, first explain why you think he's really not. Otherwise, you have unintentionally complimented him

    Being knowledgeable is not a fault.
  145. @PhysicistDave
    Mr. McKenna wrote:

    A mark of a truly great intellect is that it’s worn lightly. Neither of those ‘two lads’ manages that, though I admit Jack sometimes comes close.
     
    Nope. I took classes from Richard Feynman. He was a great intellect, but not a modest man.

    If you're smart, no reason to hide your light under a bushel.

    You, on the other hand, should be modest, because you have so much to be modest about.

    Good one! You can’t even figure out what’s so very sad about bragging on the internet when it’s explained to you. You don’t even understand what ‘worn lightly’ means! But never mind, it’s sort of fun watching you dig your hole deeper like that.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Missy McKenna wrote to me:

    Good one! You can’t even figure out what’s so very sad about bragging on the internet when it’s explained to you.
     
    Oh, I understand: it means behaving like you.

    A loser with no achievements in life who hates it if anyone casually mentions anything of value they have done.

    You see, sometimes adults actually talk about their life experiences. Without embarrassment.

    Well, okay, there are people like you for whom your whole life is an embarrassment.

    Missy McKenna -- the PeeWee Herman of isteve!

    Missy's slogan: she has so much to be modest about.

    P.S. to anyone reading this: I have no idea why McKenna has been going after me personally for weeks, but since she seems to like playing the "Don Rickles" game, I am loath to deprive her of her sole source of enjoyment!

    You go, Missy girrrrl!!

  146. @James Speaks
    You like to sound important and knowledgeable. Apparently it is a need that you have.

    Those who make the arguments you make but who are not interested in persuasion are instead interested in domination.

    They’ve been very successful at that, so it is unsurprising that they’ve gathered a mob behind them. Spade a spade.

  147. I’m not interested in convincing anyone because I don’t want my refuge to become crowded. I post a summary of conclusions in case there are others who have never heard these before but want to do their own research. The greater number of citizens are incapable of either research or comprehension, and I do not want to give them an edge.

    The real question is why simple statements affect you so much. Do you need to be dominant and find my comments get in the way? Do you worship at the Church of Conspiracy and deem me to be a heretic?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    James said:

    I’m not interested in convincing anyone because I don’t want my refuge to become crowded. I post a summary of conclusions in case there are others who have never heard these before but want to do their own research.
     
    Well... you know if John McWhorter posts some off-the-cuff remark on linguistics, or Ed Witten on physics, or Tom Sowell on economics, or Judith Curry on climate change, I’m inclined to take them seriously because these people all have real credentials and a track record of achievement in their fields.

    I know that knowledge, experience, expertise, valid credentials, and all the rest is sneered at by young Netizens such as yourself, but I have a feeling that if you need an appendectomy, all of a sudden you start taking such things seriously, very seriously indeed!

    And, of course, someone without credentials can have an ironclad argument or solid citations and make his case that way too.

    But if you've got nothing... well, then that is what you are worth and how people can and should treat you.

    Don't worry, though: most people do grow up. Eventually. Some more slowly than others.
  148. @Mr McKenna
    Good one! You can't even figure out what's so very sad about bragging on the internet when it's explained to you. You don't even understand what 'worn lightly' means! But never mind, it's sort of fun watching you dig your hole deeper like that.

    Missy McKenna wrote to me:

    Good one! You can’t even figure out what’s so very sad about bragging on the internet when it’s explained to you.

    Oh, I understand: it means behaving like you.

    A loser with no achievements in life who hates it if anyone casually mentions anything of value they have done.

    You see, sometimes adults actually talk about their life experiences. Without embarrassment.

    Well, okay, there are people like you for whom your whole life is an embarrassment.

    Missy McKenna — the PeeWee Herman of isteve!

    Missy’s slogan: she has so much to be modest about.

    P.S. to anyone reading this: I have no idea why McKenna has been going after me personally for weeks, but since she seems to like playing the “Don Rickles” game, I am loath to deprive her of her sole source of enjoyment!

    You go, Missy girrrrl!!

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Meretricious
    Impressive riposte there Dave! Hey, are you actually a petulant 12-yr-old girl? You do write like one. It's a safe space here, so it's okay to come clean. You're among friends.
    , @Mr McKenna
    Whoa, I nearly missed this one. Your chef d'oeuvre, I daresay? Doubtful.

    It's mind-blowing that a grown man--much less an old man--could write like that.

    Of all your many antic notions, my favorite is probably your belief that posts such as that one make other people look bad. But don't stop now--keep digging. China's thataway.
  149. The real question is why simple statements affect you so much.

    Your original set of statements are similar to ones made in bad faith or by those deluded by that bad faith. Most good faith discussion is along the lines offered by Physicist Dave. Bad faith affects me because it precludes the search for truth on what is in fact a pressing question, as Steve originally noted.

    Do you need to be dominant and find my comments get in the way?

    Yes, over ankle-biters I do. I do not against men who may well be better thinkers than I. Your most recent comments suggest that you’re in the latter category rather than the former.

    Do you worship at the Church of Conspiracy and deem me to be a heretic?

    No, I worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I don’t have much interest in deeming you anything, just what you have to say.

  150. @James Speaks
    You like to sound important and knowledgeable. Apparently it is a need that you have.

    James Speaks wrote to Desiderius:

    You like to sound important and knowledgeable. Apparently it is a need that you have.

    Hmmm… Y’know, sometimes I agree with Desiderius, sometimes I disagree.

    But, sometimes people sound important because what they have to say is important. Sometimes, they sound knowledgeable because they are knowledgeable.

    I’ve taken classes from or worked with five Nobel laureates. They all sounded pretty knowledgeable.

    Because they were.

    Your attack on Desiderius sort of missed its target.

    If you want to criticize him for sounding knowledgeable, first explain why you think he’s really not. Otherwise, you have unintentionally complimented him

    Being knowledgeable is not a fault.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Sometimes, they sound knowledgeable because they are knowledgeable.
     
    Maybe I should have hit a few more $2 pitcher nights at the Pierian Spring and a few less at the local dive, but I’ve had a book in my hand from the time I was five until I got this infernal iPhone.

    I started with the best (Montaigne, Bacon, my namesake) and followed where they led. Several outstanding mentors along the way, lived around the globe.

    But mostly just share a lot of interests with Steve. That’s why I’m here. We’re all knowledgeable about our interests.
  151. @James Speaks
    I'm not interested in convincing anyone because I don't want my refuge to become crowded. I post a summary of conclusions in case there are others who have never heard these before but want to do their own research. The greater number of citizens are incapable of either research or comprehension, and I do not want to give them an edge.

    The real question is why simple statements affect you so much. Do you need to be dominant and find my comments get in the way? Do you worship at the Church of Conspiracy and deem me to be a heretic?

    James said:

    I’m not interested in convincing anyone because I don’t want my refuge to become crowded. I post a summary of conclusions in case there are others who have never heard these before but want to do their own research.

    Well… you know if John McWhorter posts some off-the-cuff remark on linguistics, or Ed Witten on physics, or Tom Sowell on economics, or Judith Curry on climate change, I’m inclined to take them seriously because these people all have real credentials and a track record of achievement in their fields.

    I know that knowledge, experience, expertise, valid credentials, and all the rest is sneered at by young Netizens such as yourself, but I have a feeling that if you need an appendectomy, all of a sudden you start taking such things seriously, very seriously indeed!

    And, of course, someone without credentials can have an ironclad argument or solid citations and make his case that way too.

    But if you’ve got nothing… well, then that is what you are worth and how people can and should treat you.

    Don’t worry, though: most people do grow up. Eventually. Some more slowly than others.

    • Replies: @James Speaks

    Well… you know if John McWhorter posts some off-the-cuff remark on linguistics, or Ed Witten on physics, or Tom Sowell on economics, or Judith Curry on climate change, I’m inclined to take them seriously because these people all have real credentials and a track record of achievement in their fields.
     
    How about James Hansen? Or James Lovelock? Or do you pay attention only to certain ones?

    I know that knowledge, experience, expertise, valid credentials, and all the rest is sneered at by young Netizens such as yourself, but I have a feeling that if you need an appendectomy, all of a sudden you start taking such things seriously, very seriously indeed!
     
    My sole physics Pd.D. super hero did not have the Nobel laureate credentials, but he did spend a lot of time at CERN, so I guess no slouch, and he also paid a lot of attention to CO2 levels. Did Feynman? I am sure that if he did, then I would want to know what he said.

    And, of course, someone without credentials can have an ironclad argument or solid citations and make his case that way too.
     
    Must have knowledge and the ability to comprehend.

    But if you’ve got nothing… well, then that is what you are worth and how people can and should treat you.
     
    Again, Hansen, Lovelock, observations over the past forty years since AGW was brought to my attention.

    Don’t worry, though: most people do grow up. Eventually. Some more slowly than others.
     
    I don't think so. To grow up, as you say, one must be willing to challenge one's own beliefs and conclusions. Emotionally and ethically, most people stay where they are comfortable, say about where I was at ten and you, I assume, about eight. I have never been comfortable, so there has always been a need to challenge.

    About Feynman, I recall him cutting through the muck at the Challenger investigation and concluding the big factor was O-ring behavior at 0C. I think the idea is to determine the biggest forcing function and figure out what it does. People who study climate, Hansen for example, did that, and the measure of the effects of CO2 increases is called co2 sensitivity, and it means what is the equilibrium temperate for a doubling in CO2 all else being held constant (1C w/o feedbacks) and including feedbacks such as water vapor (1.5 to 4.5).

    I am concerned not so much at the total even with feedback, after all Russian is a great language, but the speed with which warming occurs and whether ecosystems can keep up.

    Question for you to research: For each month of the year, and then for the yearly average, how many of the twenty warmest months or years since record keeping began have occurred in the past twenty years?

    You can argue all day long that AGW is not the major cause, but do you consider that the other forcing functions take much longer to show their effects?

    As for other posters, I do not usually discuss third parties, and will keep to that rule for now.

  152. @The Anti-Gnostic
    The physics on this is very simple:

    Okay, refer me to the reproducible experiments which demonstrate this simple physics.

    I don't doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas--that's how you get Venus after all-- but I suspect it's a small part of a much bigger problem. Focus on CO2 is a deflection, which was Michael Crichton's opinion.

    The Anti-Gnostic wrote to me:

    [Dave]The physics on this is very simple:

    TAG: Okay, refer me to the reproducible experiments which demonstrate this simple physics.

    I don’t doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas–that’s how you get Venus after all– but I suspect it’s a small part of a much bigger problem. Focus on CO2 is a deflection, which was Michael Crichton’s opinion.

    Well… anyone who passed frosh physics is supposed to understand why getting under a blanket is that experiment!

    I think you probably misunderstood me, though. I meant that anthropogenic CO2 does indeed make the globe warmer, but I do not think (and it certainly is not true!) that it is the only thing that makes the globe warmer.

    I know of no one who claims the Medieval Warm Period was due to anthropogeenic CO2, and, it would be weird to attribute the Little Ice Age to human behavior.

    So, yeah, lots of stuff going on: changes in the earth’s orbital parameters, solar variability, centuries long-oscillations in the climate system, perhaps stuff no one has thought of yet.

    What makes science interesting is that you cannot just do computer simulations: you actually have to compare your theories and calculations to the real world, and, quite commonly, Nature is rather more subtle than we thought.

    The truth is, so far the climate simulations have done very badly at predicting empirical reality.

    We’re missing something. Reality is complicated.

    To a scientist, that is exciting. To people with political axes to grind — well, they tend not to be good at handling the unknown.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    So there aren't any. I guess the physics aren't so simple after all.
  153. @PhysicistDave
    Missy McKenna wrote to me:

    Good one! You can’t even figure out what’s so very sad about bragging on the internet when it’s explained to you.
     
    Oh, I understand: it means behaving like you.

    A loser with no achievements in life who hates it if anyone casually mentions anything of value they have done.

    You see, sometimes adults actually talk about their life experiences. Without embarrassment.

    Well, okay, there are people like you for whom your whole life is an embarrassment.

    Missy McKenna -- the PeeWee Herman of isteve!

    Missy's slogan: she has so much to be modest about.

    P.S. to anyone reading this: I have no idea why McKenna has been going after me personally for weeks, but since she seems to like playing the "Don Rickles" game, I am loath to deprive her of her sole source of enjoyment!

    You go, Missy girrrrl!!

    Impressive riposte there Dave! Hey, are you actually a petulant 12-yr-old girl? You do write like one. It’s a safe space here, so it’s okay to come clean. You’re among friends.

    • Troll: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Meretricious wrote

    ...
     
    Definition of "meretricious":

    1) apparently attractive but having in reality no value or integrity.

    2) relating to or characteristic of a prostitute.

    Dictionaries are revealing.
  154. @PhysicistDave
    James said:

    I’m not interested in convincing anyone because I don’t want my refuge to become crowded. I post a summary of conclusions in case there are others who have never heard these before but want to do their own research.
     
    Well... you know if John McWhorter posts some off-the-cuff remark on linguistics, or Ed Witten on physics, or Tom Sowell on economics, or Judith Curry on climate change, I’m inclined to take them seriously because these people all have real credentials and a track record of achievement in their fields.

    I know that knowledge, experience, expertise, valid credentials, and all the rest is sneered at by young Netizens such as yourself, but I have a feeling that if you need an appendectomy, all of a sudden you start taking such things seriously, very seriously indeed!

    And, of course, someone without credentials can have an ironclad argument or solid citations and make his case that way too.

    But if you've got nothing... well, then that is what you are worth and how people can and should treat you.

    Don't worry, though: most people do grow up. Eventually. Some more slowly than others.

    Well… you know if John McWhorter posts some off-the-cuff remark on linguistics, or Ed Witten on physics, or Tom Sowell on economics, or Judith Curry on climate change, I’m inclined to take them seriously because these people all have real credentials and a track record of achievement in their fields.

    How about James Hansen? Or James Lovelock? Or do you pay attention only to certain ones?

    I know that knowledge, experience, expertise, valid credentials, and all the rest is sneered at by young Netizens such as yourself, but I have a feeling that if you need an appendectomy, all of a sudden you start taking such things seriously, very seriously indeed!

    My sole physics Pd.D. super hero did not have the Nobel laureate credentials, but he did spend a lot of time at CERN, so I guess no slouch, and he also paid a lot of attention to CO2 levels. Did Feynman? I am sure that if he did, then I would want to know what he said.

    And, of course, someone without credentials can have an ironclad argument or solid citations and make his case that way too.

    Must have knowledge and the ability to comprehend.

    But if you’ve got nothing… well, then that is what you are worth and how people can and should treat you.

    Again, Hansen, Lovelock, observations over the past forty years since AGW was brought to my attention.

    Don’t worry, though: most people do grow up. Eventually. Some more slowly than others.

    I don’t think so. To grow up, as you say, one must be willing to challenge one’s own beliefs and conclusions. Emotionally and ethically, most people stay where they are comfortable, say about where I was at ten and you, I assume, about eight. I have never been comfortable, so there has always been a need to challenge.

    About Feynman, I recall him cutting through the muck at the Challenger investigation and concluding the big factor was O-ring behavior at 0C. I think the idea is to determine the biggest forcing function and figure out what it does. People who study climate, Hansen for example, did that, and the measure of the effects of CO2 increases is called co2 sensitivity, and it means what is the equilibrium temperate for a doubling in CO2 all else being held constant (1C w/o feedbacks) and including feedbacks such as water vapor (1.5 to 4.5).

    I am concerned not so much at the total even with feedback, after all Russian is a great language, but the speed with which warming occurs and whether ecosystems can keep up.

    Question for you to research: For each month of the year, and then for the yearly average, how many of the twenty warmest months or years since record keeping began have occurred in the past twenty years?

    You can argue all day long that AGW is not the major cause, but do you consider that the other forcing functions take much longer to show their effects?

    As for other posters, I do not usually discuss third parties, and will keep to that rule for now.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The principal forcing function for Hansen is his deranged politics.
  155. @Meretricious
    Impressive riposte there Dave! Hey, are you actually a petulant 12-yr-old girl? You do write like one. It's a safe space here, so it's okay to come clean. You're among friends.

    Meretricious wrote

    Definition of “meretricious”:

    1) apparently attractive but having in reality no value or integrity.

    2) relating to or characteristic of a prostitute.

    Dictionaries are revealing.

  156. James Speaks asked me:

    How about …James Lovelock?

    Or Immanuel Velikovsky. Both jokes.

    I do not take seriously anyone who takes Lovelock or Velikovsky seriously.

    From the Wikipedia:

    While the [Gaia] hypothesis was readily accepted by many in the environmentalist community, it has not been widely accepted within the scientific community as a whole. Among its most prominent critics are the evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins, Ford Doolittle, and Stephen Jay Gould, a convergence of opinion among a trio whose views on other scientific matters often diverge. These (and other) critics have questioned how natural selection operating on individual organisms can lead to the evolution of planetary-scale homeostasis.

    Well, at least he succeeded at something: getting Dawkins and Gould to make common cause against a crackpot!

    And, what’s not to love about a guy who loves nuclear radiation. From Lovelock’s book The Revenge of Gaia:

    One of the striking things about places heavily contaminated by radioactive nuclides is the richness of their wildlife. This is true of the land around Chernobyl, the bomb test sites of the Pacific, and areas near the United States’ Savannah River nuclear weapons plant of the Second World War. Wild plants and animals do not perceive radiation as dangerous.

    No, because neither they nor humans can “perceive” nuclear radiation at all. But it is still not real good for you.

    I still remember Asimov’s famous essay on Velikovsky where Asimove said he just could not stop laughing and laughing.

    Lovelock is less amusing.

    • Replies: @James Speaks
    You like to smear, don't you.

    James Ephraim Lovelock
    26 July 1919 (age 99)
    University of Manchester (BSc)
    London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (PhD)
    Known for
    Electron capture detector
    Gaia hypothesis
    Awards
    Fellow of the Royal Society (1974)
    Tswett Medal (1975)
    American Chemical Society Award in Chromatography (1980)
    Norbert Gerbier–MUMM Award (1988)
    Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences (1990)
    Commander of the Order of the British Empire (1990)
    Volvo Environment Prize (1996)
    Companion of Honour (2003)
    Wollaston Medal (2006)[1]
    Arne Naess Chair in Global Justice and the Environment (2007)[2]
    Scientific career
    Fields
    Chemistry, earth science
    Institutions
    Independent scientist
    Yale University
    Baylor College of Medicine
    Harvard University
    Harvard Medical School[3]
    Thesis

    James Ephraim Lovelock, CH CBE FRS (born 26 July 1919) is an independent scientist, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Dorset, England. He is best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.[4]
    With a PhD in medicine, he performed cryopreservation experiments on rodents, including successfully thawing frozen specimens. His methods were influential in the theories of cryonics (the cryopreservation of humans). He invented the electron capture detector, and using it, became the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. While designing scientific instruments for NASA, he developed the Gaia hypothesis.
    In the 2000s, he proposed a method of climate engineering to restore carbon dioxide-consuming algae. He has been an outspoken member of Environmentalists for Nuclear, citing the effects of carbon dioxide as being more harmful to the environment, and warning of global warming due to the greenhouse effect. He has written several environmental science books based upon the Gaia hypothesis since the late 1970s.


    In the mid-1950s, Lovelock experimented with the cryopreservation of rodents, determining that hamsters could be frozen with 60% of the water in the brain crystallized into ice with no adverse effects recorded. Other organs were shown to be susceptible to damage.[11] The results were influential in the theories of cryonics.
    A lifelong inventor, Lovelock has created and developed many scientific instruments, some of which were designed for NASA in its planetary exploration program. It was while working as a consultant for NASA that Lovelock developed the Gaia hypothesis, for which he is most widely known.
    In early 1961, Lovelock was engaged by NASA to develop sensitive instruments for the analysis of extraterrestrial atmospheres and planetary surfaces. The Viking program, which visited Mars in the late 1970s, was motivated in part to determine whether Mars supported life, and many of the sensors and experiments that were ultimately deployed aimed to resolve this issue. During work on a precursor of this program, Lovelock became interested in the composition of the Martian atmosphere, reasoning that many life forms on Mars would be obliged to make use of it (and, thus, alter it). However, the atmosphere was found to be in a stable condition close to its chemical equilibrium, with very little oxygen, methane, or hydrogen, but with an overwhelming abundance of carbon dioxide. To Lovelock, the stark contrast between the Martian atmosphere and chemically dynamic mixture of the Earth's biosphere was strongly indicative of the absence of life on Mars.[12] However, when they were finally launched to Mars, the Viking probes still searched (unsuccessfully) for extant life there. Further experiments to search for life on Mars have been carried out by further space probes, most recently NASA'S 2012 Curiosity Rover.

    Electron capture detector developed by Lovelock, and in the Science Museum, London
    Lovelock had invented the electron capture detector, which ultimately assisted in discoveries about the persistence of CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion.[13][14][15] After studying the operation of the Earth's sulphur cycle,[16] Lovelock and his colleagues, Robert Jay Charlson, Meinrat Andreae and Stephen G. Warren developed the CLAW hypothesis as a possible example of biological control of the Earth's climate.[17]
    Lovelock was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974.[18] He served as the president of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) from 1986 to 1990, and has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford (formerly Green College, Oxford) since 1994.
    As an independent scientist, inventor, and author, Lovelock worked out of a barn-turned-laboratory he called his "experimental station" located in a wooded valley on the Devon/Cornwall border in the South West England.[19]
    On 8 May 2012, he appeared on the Radio Four series The Life Scientific, talking to Jim al-Khalili about the Gaia hypothesis. On the programme, he mentioned how his ideas had been received by various people, including Jonathan Porritt. He also mentioned how he had a claim for inventing the microwave oven. He later explained this claim in an interview with The Manchester Magazine. Lovelock said that he did create an instrument during his time studying causes of damage to living cells and tissue, which had, according to him, "almost everything you would expect in an ordinary microwave oven". He invented the instrument for the purpose of heating up frozen hamsters in a way that caused less suffering to the animals, as opposed to the traditional way which involved putting red hot spoons on the animals' chest to heat them up. He believes that at the time, nobody had gone that far and made an embodiment of an actual microwave oven.[20] However, he does not claim to have been the first person to have the idea of using microwaves for cooking.[6]
     

  157. @Desiderius

    He was a great intellect
     
    Indeed. Strangely low IQ though. Curious.

    Desiderius wrote to me:

    [Dave]: [Feynman] was a great intellect

    [Desiderius]: Indeed. Strangely low IQ though. Curious.

    My guess is that the IQ test he took was not well validated or properly conducted: my own knowledge of my IQ (supposedly much higher than Feynman’s) came from a test casually given by a friend who was taking a graduate course on how to give IQ tests. His results were consistent with other info I have (e.g., SAT and GRE scores), but I have no idea (I don’t really care) if he really knew what he was doing.

    I.e., I’m more than a bit skeptical that my IQ is really higher than Feynman’s.

    Also, I think Sailer has said that you need an IQ of about 120 to get a Nobel: the rest is a big heaping of luck and a huge amount of very hard work. I knew Feynman over four years, including two years of formal classes, and I’ve grown more familiar with lots of his work since.

    He loved to tell anecdotes of himself that made it sound as if he was just a happy-go-lucky kid who stumbled upon important discoveries. But, in truth, he worked very hard.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Of course he knew what he was doing, maybe better than anyone else. Saying that knowing what one is doing (and doing it well!) correlates only imperfectly with IQ. Just as 40 time isn’t the only measure of a great wide receiver. So he’d be akin to Largent/Edelman.
  158. @James Speaks
    This subject tends to generate a lot of heat (u intentional pun) and very little light. There are a few things we know for certain and a couple of others that we can assume.

    CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas and it was historically below 300 ppm. Last time I checked, it had risen to about 410 ppm.

    The effect of doubling CO2 is pretty well established, though it could take a long time for the earth system to reach equilibrium.

    Oceans store heat and this creates a lag in average land temps.

    Warmer average temperatures change global circulation patterns. Hadley cells move further north (and south in the southern hemisphere) and expand. Thus, larger swath of desert.

    Higher average air temps cause higher soil temps cause decrease in soil moisture causes decrease in crop yields causes famine causes more people to move north.

    Different factors caused climate changes in the past, but none as rapidly as the current CO2 forcing.

    Computer models are complex; they are getting better. Consistently, actual measurements show that predicted changes occur more rapidly than models predict.

    The details of sea level rise include ocean currents and displacement of mass from Antarctic to everywhere causes greater sea level rise in North America than elsewhere. It only takes six inches or so to ruin many coastal cities as desirable places to live cause internal migration causes strife.

    The one billion souls threatened with extinction when glaciers fail to provide adequate water in summer live in SE Asia. Our problem is that at least three nations there have nukes.

    Changes in rainfall patterns turn the SE US into the SW, the SW completely arid, and extend the arid zone northward into the grain producing heartland of North America.

    There's more, a lot more. None of this happens on cue to disprove a denialist, which is good. The last thing I want to do is to convince a denialist that he/she/it is living on the edge of a precipice. But when the preponderance of information all suggest the same thing, and that is a radical change in the support structure of our civilization, then a prudent individual takes note.

    Belief has nothing to do with it. I believe in the law a gravity. I understand that if I drop a bowling ball on my foot, it will hurt.

    Jimmy Speaks wrote to me:

    Computer models are complex; they are getting better. Consistently, actual measurements show that predicted changes occur more rapidly than models predict.

    Well, at least we now have solid proof that our Jimmy is not a scientist!

    How can you know that computer models are getting better?????

    If you have enough parameters you can fit any finite data set. Exactly. Even only using polynomials. Look up “Lagrange interpolation.”

    The question is: can you predict data you do not yet have?

    Prediction is hard, especially of the future.

    And, by that standard of the scientific method, the models have failed.

    The Big Issue in the last couple decades is the so-called “Pause.”

    The models did not predict it.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.

    Yes, yes, I know people have re-tweaked the data to make the models’ predictions look better. That is a techniques that grade-school kids refer to as “cheating.”

    If you have to move the goalposts after your kick has failed, you didn’t really make it.

    Maybe someday we will have models that can actually prove their accuracy by making accourate predictions of future data.

    But not yet.

    • Replies: @James Speaks

    The Big Issue in the last couple decades is the so-called “Pause.”
    The models did not predict it.
     
    OK. I just lost all rtespect for you.

    The so-called "pause" is obtained by cherry picking measurements.

    Again, look up the warmest 20 Januarys, Februarys etc through Decembers and the warmest years since record keeping began, and how many of them occurred within the past twenty years.

    Or don't. Remain ignorant.
  159. @PhysicistDave
    Desiderius wrote to me:


    [Dave]: [Feynman] was a great intellect
     
    [Desiderius]: Indeed. Strangely low IQ though. Curious.
     
    My guess is that the IQ test he took was not well validated or properly conducted: my own knowledge of my IQ (supposedly much higher than Feynman's) came from a test casually given by a friend who was taking a graduate course on how to give IQ tests. His results were consistent with other info I have (e.g., SAT and GRE scores), but I have no idea (I don't really care) if he really knew what he was doing.

    I.e., I'm more than a bit skeptical that my IQ is really higher than Feynman's.

    Also, I think Sailer has said that you need an IQ of about 120 to get a Nobel: the rest is a big heaping of luck and a huge amount of very hard work. I knew Feynman over four years, including two years of formal classes, and I've grown more familiar with lots of his work since.

    He loved to tell anecdotes of himself that made it sound as if he was just a happy-go-lucky kid who stumbled upon important discoveries. But, in truth, he worked very hard.

    Of course he knew what he was doing, maybe better than anyone else. Saying that knowing what one is doing (and doing it well!) correlates only imperfectly with IQ. Just as 40 time isn’t the only measure of a great wide receiver. So he’d be akin to Largent/Edelman.

  160. @Mr McKenna
    A mark of a truly great intellect is that it's worn lightly. Neither of those 'two lads' manages that, though I admit Jack sometimes comes close.

    Physicist Dave is, to the extent that one can know anything about those we engage with on the Internet, a Cal Tech trained working Physicist. I generally regard very highly anything that he has to say about the physical world. I believe that he has also thought deeply about many things and feel that he adds a great deal to the conversation here.
    Jack, with the same caveat, is a trained lawyer. I think he adds a lot of value to the many discussions here that center on legal issues.
    I hope that this recent piling on that these two have been subject to doesn’t have the effect of driving them from the forum.
    I would hate for iSteve to turn into the old TakiMag forum.
    I’ve gone on many a journey of discovery after reading some nugget in a comment here.
    On the other hand, it’s easy to block those commenters who really grind your gears. It makes for a much more pleasant experience to pass easily by some of the most valueless dreck.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  161. @PhysicistDave
    Jimmy Speaks wrote to me:

    Computer models are complex; they are getting better. Consistently, actual measurements show that predicted changes occur more rapidly than models predict.
     
    Well, at least we now have solid proof that our Jimmy is not a scientist!

    How can you know that computer models are getting better?????

    If you have enough parameters you can fit any finite data set. Exactly. Even only using polynomials. Look up "Lagrange interpolation."

    The question is: can you predict data you do not yet have?

    Prediction is hard, especially of the future.

    And, by that standard of the scientific method, the models have failed.

    The Big Issue in the last couple decades is the so-called "Pause."

    The models did not predict it.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.

    Yes, yes, I know people have re-tweaked the data to make the models' predictions look better. That is a techniques that grade-school kids refer to as "cheating."

    If you have to move the goalposts after your kick has failed, you didn't really make it.

    Maybe someday we will have models that can actually prove their accuracy by making accourate predictions of future data.

    But not yet.

    The Big Issue in the last couple decades is the so-called “Pause.”
    The models did not predict it.

    OK. I just lost all rtespect for you.

    The so-called “pause” is obtained by cherry picking measurements.

    Again, look up the warmest 20 Januarys, Februarys etc through Decembers and the warmest years since record keeping began, and how many of them occurred within the past twenty years.

    Or don’t. Remain ignorant.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Since record-keeping began is a tiny sliver of the relevant data.

    What a maroon!
    , @PhysicistDave
    Crazy Jimmy wrote to me:

    OK. I just lost all rtespect for you.
     
    That's good. Because I lost all respect for you a long time ago. Now, we're back on even groound.

    Except for one thing: I actually know the physics and math underlying climate modeling, and you don't!

    Jimmy also wrote:

    The so-called “pause” is obtained by cherry picking measurements.
     
    Even climate scientists who think that global warming may be a big problem also think that the Pause is hard to explain.

    They have made some efforts, and perhaps those efforts will work out. But no one expected the pattern that the climate has actually followed for the last two decades.

    Read the back-and-forth between the actual climate scientists: using the data that people expected to be used to test the models, the models failed.

    A meta-point: when legitimate experts are debating which data set to use to test the models, then the models have not been confirmed. Most mathematical models of the real world have been ludicrously, hysterically wrong. The onus of proof is on those who claim their model has proven to be good. Until they can convince almost all of their fellow scientists who are conversant with the relevant science, they lose.

    A second meta-point: I have a Ph.D. in the relevant science, physics, from Stanford, I know the math and physics underlying climate modeling, I have been following the climate-modeling efforts for almost exactly five decades, and my best friend from high school worked on some of the early cloud-modeling work.

    You, on the other hand, have none of this knowledge or experience: you have simply jumped around the Web and decided to believe some scientists, such as Lovelock, who is generally recognized as a crack-pot by actual scientists.

    Does this prove I am right and you are wrong? No, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    But, the betting money would not be on you.

    If you had any common sense at all, you would be trying to learn from me: my conclusion might be wrong, but you would almost certainly learn something, since I know a great deal more about the relevant subjects than you. (Did you even know what "Lagrange interpolation" was or why it is relevant? No, I didn't think so.)

    I am not claiming access to extraordinary or esoteric knowledge. I am merely pointing out that climate modeling is exceedingly hard, and that laymen -- such as journalists, politicians, and, least of all, you -- fail to realize how tentative and uncertain the current models are.

    No doubt I am wasting my breath.
  162. @PhysicistDave
    James Speaks asked me:

    How about ...James Lovelock?
     
    Or Immanuel Velikovsky. Both jokes.

    I do not take seriously anyone who takes Lovelock or Velikovsky seriously.

    From the Wikipedia:

    While the [Gaia] hypothesis was readily accepted by many in the environmentalist community, it has not been widely accepted within the scientific community as a whole. Among its most prominent critics are the evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins, Ford Doolittle, and Stephen Jay Gould, a convergence of opinion among a trio whose views on other scientific matters often diverge. These (and other) critics have questioned how natural selection operating on individual organisms can lead to the evolution of planetary-scale homeostasis.
     
    Well, at least he succeeded at something: getting Dawkins and Gould to make common cause against a crackpot!

    And, what's not to love about a guy who loves nuclear radiation. From Lovelock's book The Revenge of Gaia:

    One of the striking things about places heavily contaminated by radioactive nuclides is the richness of their wildlife. This is true of the land around Chernobyl, the bomb test sites of the Pacific, and areas near the United States' Savannah River nuclear weapons plant of the Second World War. Wild plants and animals do not perceive radiation as dangerous.
     
    No, because neither they nor humans can "perceive" nuclear radiation at all. But it is still not real good for you.

    I still remember Asimov's famous essay on Velikovsky where Asimove said he just could not stop laughing and laughing.

    Lovelock is less amusing.

    You like to smear, don’t you.

    James Ephraim Lovelock
    26 July 1919 (age 99)
    University of Manchester (BSc)
    London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (PhD)
    Known for
    Electron capture detector
    Gaia hypothesis
    Awards
    Fellow of the Royal Society (1974)
    Tswett Medal (1975)
    American Chemical Society Award in Chromatography (1980)
    Norbert Gerbier–MUMM Award (1988)
    Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences (1990)
    Commander of the Order of the British Empire (1990)
    Volvo Environment Prize (1996)
    Companion of Honour (2003)
    Wollaston Medal (2006)[1]
    Arne Naess Chair in Global Justice and the Environment (2007)[2]
    Scientific career
    Fields
    Chemistry, earth science
    Institutions
    Independent scientist
    Yale University
    Baylor College of Medicine
    Harvard University
    Harvard Medical School[3]
    Thesis

    James Ephraim Lovelock, CH CBE FRS (born 26 July 1919) is an independent scientist, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Dorset, England. He is best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.[4]
    With a PhD in medicine, he performed cryopreservation experiments on rodents, including successfully thawing frozen specimens. His methods were influential in the theories of cryonics (the cryopreservation of humans). He invented the electron capture detector, and using it, became the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. While designing scientific instruments for NASA, he developed the Gaia hypothesis.
    In the 2000s, he proposed a method of climate engineering to restore carbon dioxide-consuming algae. He has been an outspoken member of Environmentalists for Nuclear, citing the effects of carbon dioxide as being more harmful to the environment, and warning of global warming due to the greenhouse effect. He has written several environmental science books based upon the Gaia hypothesis since the late 1970s.

    In the mid-1950s, Lovelock experimented with the cryopreservation of rodents, determining that hamsters could be frozen with 60% of the water in the brain crystallized into ice with no adverse effects recorded. Other organs were shown to be susceptible to damage.[11] The results were influential in the theories of cryonics.
    A lifelong inventor, Lovelock has created and developed many scientific instruments, some of which were designed for NASA in its planetary exploration program. It was while working as a consultant for NASA that Lovelock developed the Gaia hypothesis, for which he is most widely known.
    In early 1961, Lovelock was engaged by NASA to develop sensitive instruments for the analysis of extraterrestrial atmospheres and planetary surfaces. The Viking program, which visited Mars in the late 1970s, was motivated in part to determine whether Mars supported life, and many of the sensors and experiments that were ultimately deployed aimed to resolve this issue. During work on a precursor of this program, Lovelock became interested in the composition of the Martian atmosphere, reasoning that many life forms on Mars would be obliged to make use of it (and, thus, alter it). However, the atmosphere was found to be in a stable condition close to its chemical equilibrium, with very little oxygen, methane, or hydrogen, but with an overwhelming abundance of carbon dioxide. To Lovelock, the stark contrast between the Martian atmosphere and chemically dynamic mixture of the Earth’s biosphere was strongly indicative of the absence of life on Mars.[12] However, when they were finally launched to Mars, the Viking probes still searched (unsuccessfully) for extant life there. Further experiments to search for life on Mars have been carried out by further space probes, most recently NASA’S 2012 Curiosity Rover.

    Electron capture detector developed by Lovelock, and in the Science Museum, London
    Lovelock had invented the electron capture detector, which ultimately assisted in discoveries about the persistence of CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion.[13][14][15] After studying the operation of the Earth’s sulphur cycle,[16] Lovelock and his colleagues, Robert Jay Charlson, Meinrat Andreae and Stephen G. Warren developed the CLAW hypothesis as a possible example of biological control of the Earth’s climate.[17]
    Lovelock was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974.[18] He served as the president of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) from 1986 to 1990, and has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford (formerly Green College, Oxford) since 1994.
    As an independent scientist, inventor, and author, Lovelock worked out of a barn-turned-laboratory he called his “experimental station” located in a wooded valley on the Devon/Cornwall border in the South West England.[19]
    On 8 May 2012, he appeared on the Radio Four series The Life Scientific, talking to Jim al-Khalili about the Gaia hypothesis. On the programme, he mentioned how his ideas had been received by various people, including Jonathan Porritt. He also mentioned how he had a claim for inventing the microwave oven. He later explained this claim in an interview with The Manchester Magazine. Lovelock said that he did create an instrument during his time studying causes of damage to living cells and tissue, which had, according to him, “almost everything you would expect in an ordinary microwave oven”. He invented the instrument for the purpose of heating up frozen hamsters in a way that caused less suffering to the animals, as opposed to the traditional way which involved putting red hot spoons on the animals’ chest to heat them up. He believes that at the time, nobody had gone that far and made an embodiment of an actual microwave oven.[20] However, he does not claim to have been the first person to have the idea of using microwaves for cooking.[6]

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Crazy Jimmy wrote to me:

    You like to smear, don’t you.
     
    No. I don't "like" it. I love it; I exult in it; I consider it a supreme service to mankind.

    If the person deserves it.

    I frankly have never understood why it is wrong to "smear" someone if they are already, by their own choice, covered in excrement.

    Take, for example, your own hero, Crazy Lovelock.

    As you said, he had a "PhD in medicine."

    Not in some relevant science, such as physics or earth science.

    Now, of course, it is possible to be a genius in some field in which one does not have a PhD, but a PhD in a non-relevant field is not a basis for confidence.

    Of course, if Lovelock had had any idea what he was talking about in the Gaia nonsense, he could have just explained it in a way that made sense to competent scientists.

    But he didn't.

    As the Wikipedia article accurately states:

    While the [Gaia] hypothesis was readily accepted by many in the environmentalist community, it has not been widely accepted within the scientific community as a whole. Among its most prominent critics are the evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins, Ford Doolittle, and Stephen Jay Gould, a convergence of opinion among a trio whose views on other scientific matters often diverge. These (and other) critics have questioned how natural selection operating on individual organisms can lead to the evolution of planetary-scale homeostasis.
     
    Well, a bit too kind (it avoids the word "crackpot"!), but that is the point.

    His "Gaia hypothesis" is on the scale with the crazy Nazi inside-out-earth theory.

    I mean, maybe you can make a funny fantasy novel out of it... but what is the actual scientific mechanism being proposed?

    Blank.

    Y'know, a few years ago, some idiot on the Web told me that he had figured out the truth about superstring theory: strings, you see, are just the edge of a folded sheet, sort of like when you fold a sheet of paper. When I asked him what his actual theory was, he said that working that out in detail was my job as a physicist -- he had given me the brilliant idea to work with and now I needed to get on with it.

    I lit into this moron and explained to him that silly little metaphors are a dime a dozen: a six-year-old with a bit of imagination can spin them out. Here are a few I'm just spinning out right now:

    > The points of space are like the the sharp tip of a cone: these cone-like points are so close together that they seem continuous to us.

    > When we do a quantum measurement, it 's like taking a highlight marker and yellow-marking a particular physical phenomenon.

    > Cosmic "dark energy" is like a soup broth in which material objects float as the chunks of meat and vegetables float in soup.

    > Evolution is like cutting your fingernails: species that go extinct are the part of your nails that you cut off, and the quick is the species that survive.

    The four examples that I just gave are utter and complete nonsense that I just made up (I particularly like the fingernail one!); intentionally meaningless word salad.

    But, they are no more stupid than my acquaintance's "superstrings-as-edges" theory or Lovelock's "Gaia hypothesis."

    I know that scientific ignoramuses such as you or Lovelock read some pop science book that, say, uses the metaphor of the solar system to explain the atom, and think that is what science is about: arresting metaphors.

    It's not. The devil is in the details.

    Lovelock's "Gaia hypothesis" is not an actual hypothesis, my acquaintance's "theory" about superstrings was not a theory, and the four examples I made up myself above are just cow droppings.

    Can you grasp this?

    (No, of course you can't: no more than the brain-damaged woman I know could learn calculus. Maybe someday we will actually decide to teach science in American schools.)
  163. @PhysicistDave
    The Anti-Gnostic wrote to me:


    [Dave]The physics on this is very simple:
     
    TAG: Okay, refer me to the reproducible experiments which demonstrate this simple physics.

    I don’t doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas–that’s how you get Venus after all– but I suspect it’s a small part of a much bigger problem. Focus on CO2 is a deflection, which was Michael Crichton’s opinion.
     
    Well... anyone who passed frosh physics is supposed to understand why getting under a blanket is that experiment!

    I think you probably misunderstood me, though. I meant that anthropogenic CO2 does indeed make the globe warmer, but I do not think (and it certainly is not true!) that it is the only thing that makes the globe warmer.

    I know of no one who claims the Medieval Warm Period was due to anthropogeenic CO2, and, it would be weird to attribute the Little Ice Age to human behavior.

    So, yeah, lots of stuff going on: changes in the earth's orbital parameters, solar variability, centuries long-oscillations in the climate system, perhaps stuff no one has thought of yet.

    What makes science interesting is that you cannot just do computer simulations: you actually have to compare your theories and calculations to the real world, and, quite commonly, Nature is rather more subtle than we thought.

    The truth is, so far the climate simulations have done very badly at predicting empirical reality.

    We're missing something. Reality is complicated.

    To a scientist, that is exciting. To people with political axes to grind -- well, they tend not to be good at handling the unknown.

    So there aren’t any. I guess the physics aren’t so simple after all.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    TAG wrote to me:

    So there aren’t any. I guess the physics aren’t so simple after all.
     
    Wrong. Greenhouse gases are a blanket.

    The physics is the same, to first order. The fact that you do not know any physics is not my fault.

    There is an interesting meta-narrative here: you and crazy Jimmy Speaks both know no physics.

    You, based on your ignorance of physics, deny the very simple physical analysis that shows that anthropogenic CO2 will indeed make the climate warmer than it otherwise would be.

    Crazy Jimmy, on the other hand, is crudely rude to me because I know and he doesn't know that working out the detalis of the climate feedback loops (not to mention the natural variability of the climate and even the sun) is exceedingly difficult, so that no one actually knows what fraction of global warming is due to humans, much less what the future course of climate will be.

    I know a fifty-year-old woman who does not know the multiplication table. Her IQ is jsut too low, almost certainly due to brain damage due to anoxia at the time of birth (info from her mom). Some things are just beyond her.

    Similarly, you simply cannot understand (or do not want to) why a greenhouse gas is a blanket.

    And, from the completely opposite side, crazy Jimmy simply cannot understand how science works.

    If we could just do a Vulcan mind-meld between you and Jimmy... perhaps we would end up with a sane human being!
  164. @The Anti-Gnostic
    The physics on this is very simple:

    Okay, refer me to the reproducible experiments which demonstrate this simple physics.

    I don't doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas--that's how you get Venus after all-- but I suspect it's a small part of a much bigger problem. Focus on CO2 is a deflection, which was Michael Crichton's opinion.

    The atmosphere of Venus is 96% CO2 while here in Earth CO2 is a trace gas , just .04% CO2 today

    In the past , before the ice age began, CO2 concentrations reached 2% on Earth, yet this did not prevent the Ice Age.

    The current climate models predicting the warming of the earth assume that if we double CO2 concentrations to .08% the climate will warm, but this is due to an assumption that increased CO2 will result in an increase of H2O in our atmosphere….the models assume the increased levels of CO2 will not be the primary cause of the warming, because CO2 alone cannot warm the planet enough for humans to even notice. C02 is a weak greenhouse gas. Thus the models assume increased CO2 levels will increase H2O while simultaneously reducing cloud cover, since clouds actually block much of the solar energy from reaching Earth, thus having a cooling effect. So the models all assume The worst possible outcomes from increased CO2, both an increase in H2O and a decrease in clouds.

    Yet the models all failed to predict the lack of warming since 1998. Despite increased CO2 levels , the average temperature of our planet has remained stable for 20 years now. The reported record high of 2016 is statistically equivalent to 1998.

    Will it take another 20 years of no warming before the hoax is exposed?

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Prodigal son,

    I clicked "Agree" on your post, but I want to clarify one point.

    You wrote:

    Thus the models assume increased CO2 levels will increase H2O while simultaneously reducing cloud cover, since clouds actually block much of the solar energy from reaching Earth, thus having a cooling effect.
     
    It's really worse than that: depending on the type of cloud and its height in the atmosphere, clouds can have either a warming or a cooling effect.

    There are lots of other uncertainties in climate modeling: the rate of absorption of CO2 by the oceans, the effect of vegetation on climate, even whether solar variability is of any importance.

    But oh those clouds! What a nightmare. Of course, this is what scientists call "an interesting problem."

    Dave
  165. @James Speaks

    The Big Issue in the last couple decades is the so-called “Pause.”
    The models did not predict it.
     
    OK. I just lost all rtespect for you.

    The so-called "pause" is obtained by cherry picking measurements.

    Again, look up the warmest 20 Januarys, Februarys etc through Decembers and the warmest years since record keeping began, and how many of them occurred within the past twenty years.

    Or don't. Remain ignorant.

    Since record-keeping began is a tiny sliver of the relevant data.

    What a maroon!

  166. @James Speaks

    Well… you know if John McWhorter posts some off-the-cuff remark on linguistics, or Ed Witten on physics, or Tom Sowell on economics, or Judith Curry on climate change, I’m inclined to take them seriously because these people all have real credentials and a track record of achievement in their fields.
     
    How about James Hansen? Or James Lovelock? Or do you pay attention only to certain ones?

    I know that knowledge, experience, expertise, valid credentials, and all the rest is sneered at by young Netizens such as yourself, but I have a feeling that if you need an appendectomy, all of a sudden you start taking such things seriously, very seriously indeed!
     
    My sole physics Pd.D. super hero did not have the Nobel laureate credentials, but he did spend a lot of time at CERN, so I guess no slouch, and he also paid a lot of attention to CO2 levels. Did Feynman? I am sure that if he did, then I would want to know what he said.

    And, of course, someone without credentials can have an ironclad argument or solid citations and make his case that way too.
     
    Must have knowledge and the ability to comprehend.

    But if you’ve got nothing… well, then that is what you are worth and how people can and should treat you.
     
    Again, Hansen, Lovelock, observations over the past forty years since AGW was brought to my attention.

    Don’t worry, though: most people do grow up. Eventually. Some more slowly than others.
     
    I don't think so. To grow up, as you say, one must be willing to challenge one's own beliefs and conclusions. Emotionally and ethically, most people stay where they are comfortable, say about where I was at ten and you, I assume, about eight. I have never been comfortable, so there has always been a need to challenge.

    About Feynman, I recall him cutting through the muck at the Challenger investigation and concluding the big factor was O-ring behavior at 0C. I think the idea is to determine the biggest forcing function and figure out what it does. People who study climate, Hansen for example, did that, and the measure of the effects of CO2 increases is called co2 sensitivity, and it means what is the equilibrium temperate for a doubling in CO2 all else being held constant (1C w/o feedbacks) and including feedbacks such as water vapor (1.5 to 4.5).

    I am concerned not so much at the total even with feedback, after all Russian is a great language, but the speed with which warming occurs and whether ecosystems can keep up.

    Question for you to research: For each month of the year, and then for the yearly average, how many of the twenty warmest months or years since record keeping began have occurred in the past twenty years?

    You can argue all day long that AGW is not the major cause, but do you consider that the other forcing functions take much longer to show their effects?

    As for other posters, I do not usually discuss third parties, and will keep to that rule for now.

    The principal forcing function for Hansen is his deranged politics.

    • Agree: Laurent Guyénot
  167. @PhysicistDave
    James Speaks wrote to Desiderius:

    You like to sound important and knowledgeable. Apparently it is a need that you have.
     
    Hmmm... Y'know, sometimes I agree with Desiderius, sometimes I disagree.

    But, sometimes people sound important because what they have to say is important. Sometimes, they sound knowledgeable because they are knowledgeable.

    I've taken classes from or worked with five Nobel laureates. They all sounded pretty knowledgeable.

    Because they were.

    Your attack on Desiderius sort of missed its target.

    If you want to criticize him for sounding knowledgeable, first explain why you think he's really not. Otherwise, you have unintentionally complimented him

    Being knowledgeable is not a fault.

    Sometimes, they sound knowledgeable because they are knowledgeable.

    Maybe I should have hit a few more $2 pitcher nights at the Pierian Spring and a few less at the local dive, but I’ve had a book in my hand from the time I was five until I got this infernal iPhone.

    I started with the best (Montaigne, Bacon, my namesake) and followed where they led. Several outstanding mentors along the way, lived around the globe.

    But mostly just share a lot of interests with Steve. That’s why I’m here. We’re all knowledgeable about our interests.

  168. @The Anti-Gnostic
    So there aren't any. I guess the physics aren't so simple after all.

    TAG wrote to me:

    So there aren’t any. I guess the physics aren’t so simple after all.

    Wrong. Greenhouse gases are a blanket.

    The physics is the same, to first order. The fact that you do not know any physics is not my fault.

    There is an interesting meta-narrative here: you and crazy Jimmy Speaks both know no physics.

    You, based on your ignorance of physics, deny the very simple physical analysis that shows that anthropogenic CO2 will indeed make the climate warmer than it otherwise would be.

    Crazy Jimmy, on the other hand, is crudely rude to me because I know and he doesn’t know that working out the detalis of the climate feedback loops (not to mention the natural variability of the climate and even the sun) is exceedingly difficult, so that no one actually knows what fraction of global warming is due to humans, much less what the future course of climate will be.

    I know a fifty-year-old woman who does not know the multiplication table. Her IQ is jsut too low, almost certainly due to brain damage due to anoxia at the time of birth (info from her mom). Some things are just beyond her.

    Similarly, you simply cannot understand (or do not want to) why a greenhouse gas is a blanket.

    And, from the completely opposite side, crazy Jimmy simply cannot understand how science works.

    If we could just do a Vulcan mind-meld between you and Jimmy… perhaps we would end up with a sane human being!

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Except in the mix of gases that blanket the Earth, CO2 is the lace pillow sham. Again, if CO2 being released from fossil fuel combustion is THE problem, then we can point to it and do something about it, like the way we removed heavy metals from the American environment. But the experiments don't get run, apparently because they don't generate the results people want. This is a solution--tax and spend--in search of a problem.
  169. @James Speaks

    The Big Issue in the last couple decades is the so-called “Pause.”
    The models did not predict it.
     
    OK. I just lost all rtespect for you.

    The so-called "pause" is obtained by cherry picking measurements.

    Again, look up the warmest 20 Januarys, Februarys etc through Decembers and the warmest years since record keeping began, and how many of them occurred within the past twenty years.

    Or don't. Remain ignorant.

    Crazy Jimmy wrote to me:

    OK. I just lost all rtespect for you.

    That’s good. Because I lost all respect for you a long time ago. Now, we’re back on even groound.

    Except for one thing: I actually know the physics and math underlying climate modeling, and you don’t!

    Jimmy also wrote:

    The so-called “pause” is obtained by cherry picking measurements.

    Even climate scientists who think that global warming may be a big problem also think that the Pause is hard to explain.

    They have made some efforts, and perhaps those efforts will work out. But no one expected the pattern that the climate has actually followed for the last two decades.

    Read the back-and-forth between the actual climate scientists: using the data that people expected to be used to test the models, the models failed.

    A meta-point: when legitimate experts are debating which data set to use to test the models, then the models have not been confirmed. Most mathematical models of the real world have been ludicrously, hysterically wrong. The onus of proof is on those who claim their model has proven to be good. Until they can convince almost all of their fellow scientists who are conversant with the relevant science, they lose.

    A second meta-point: I have a Ph.D. in the relevant science, physics, from Stanford, I know the math and physics underlying climate modeling, I have been following the climate-modeling efforts for almost exactly five decades, and my best friend from high school worked on some of the early cloud-modeling work.

    You, on the other hand, have none of this knowledge or experience: you have simply jumped around the Web and decided to believe some scientists, such as Lovelock, who is generally recognized as a crack-pot by actual scientists.

    Does this prove I am right and you are wrong? No, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    But, the betting money would not be on you.

    If you had any common sense at all, you would be trying to learn from me: my conclusion might be wrong, but you would almost certainly learn something, since I know a great deal more about the relevant subjects than you. (Did you even know what “Lagrange interpolation” was or why it is relevant? No, I didn’t think so.)

    I am not claiming access to extraordinary or esoteric knowledge. I am merely pointing out that climate modeling is exceedingly hard, and that laymen — such as journalists, politicians, and, least of all, you — fail to realize how tentative and uncertain the current models are.

    No doubt I am wasting my breath.

  170. @Prodigal son
    The atmosphere of Venus is 96% CO2 while here in Earth CO2 is a trace gas , just .04% CO2 today

    In the past , before the ice age began, CO2 concentrations reached 2% on Earth, yet this did not prevent the Ice Age.

    The current climate models predicting the warming of the earth assume that if we double CO2 concentrations to .08% the climate will warm, but this is due to an assumption that increased CO2 will result in an increase of H2O in our atmosphere....the models assume the increased levels of CO2 will not be the primary cause of the warming, because CO2 alone cannot warm the planet enough for humans to even notice. C02 is a weak greenhouse gas. Thus the models assume increased CO2 levels will increase H2O while simultaneously reducing cloud cover, since clouds actually block much of the solar energy from reaching Earth, thus having a cooling effect. So the models all assume The worst possible outcomes from increased CO2, both an increase in H2O and a decrease in clouds.

    Yet the models all failed to predict the lack of warming since 1998. Despite increased CO2 levels , the average temperature of our planet has remained stable for 20 years now. The reported record high of 2016 is statistically equivalent to 1998.

    Will it take another 20 years of no warming before the hoax is exposed?

    Prodigal son,

    I clicked “Agree” on your post, but I want to clarify one point.

    You wrote:

    Thus the models assume increased CO2 levels will increase H2O while simultaneously reducing cloud cover, since clouds actually block much of the solar energy from reaching Earth, thus having a cooling effect.

    It’s really worse than that: depending on the type of cloud and its height in the atmosphere, clouds can have either a warming or a cooling effect.

    There are lots of other uncertainties in climate modeling: the rate of absorption of CO2 by the oceans, the effect of vegetation on climate, even whether solar variability is of any importance.

    But oh those clouds! What a nightmare. Of course, this is what scientists call “an interesting problem.”

    Dave

  171. Steve,

    I don’t know how one of my posts got posted as Laurent G*** !!! Anyway, please delete that post and this post (unless the real Laurent G. wants to take ownership of what I said!). And apologies to the real Laurent G.

    Dave

  172. @Desiderius
    “stiff diff equs”

    Diff equs (pronounced Diffy Qs) is the colloquial term for differential equations, which is the heart of the beast on the math end (i.e. highly nonlinear). We could really use a Galois to come along and give us a better sense of the (im)possible.

    Desiderius wrote to me:

    Diff equs (pronounced Diffy Qs) is the colloquial term for differential equations, which is the heart of the beast on the math end (i.e. highly nonlinear). We could really use a Galois to come along and give us a better sense of the (im)possible.

    There actualluy is a Galois theory of differential equations: I’ve never had time to learn it, and so I don’t know how it connects with the classical Galois theory of algebraic numbers.

    My guess is that if it were really helpful in solving actual diff equs, we’d all know a lot more about it. For now, I’m afraid it’s way down on my “to-do” list, well below brushing up on and actually mastering Russian.

  173. @James Speaks
    You like to smear, don't you.

    James Ephraim Lovelock
    26 July 1919 (age 99)
    University of Manchester (BSc)
    London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (PhD)
    Known for
    Electron capture detector
    Gaia hypothesis
    Awards
    Fellow of the Royal Society (1974)
    Tswett Medal (1975)
    American Chemical Society Award in Chromatography (1980)
    Norbert Gerbier–MUMM Award (1988)
    Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences (1990)
    Commander of the Order of the British Empire (1990)
    Volvo Environment Prize (1996)
    Companion of Honour (2003)
    Wollaston Medal (2006)[1]
    Arne Naess Chair in Global Justice and the Environment (2007)[2]
    Scientific career
    Fields
    Chemistry, earth science
    Institutions
    Independent scientist
    Yale University
    Baylor College of Medicine
    Harvard University
    Harvard Medical School[3]
    Thesis

    James Ephraim Lovelock, CH CBE FRS (born 26 July 1919) is an independent scientist, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Dorset, England. He is best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.[4]
    With a PhD in medicine, he performed cryopreservation experiments on rodents, including successfully thawing frozen specimens. His methods were influential in the theories of cryonics (the cryopreservation of humans). He invented the electron capture detector, and using it, became the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. While designing scientific instruments for NASA, he developed the Gaia hypothesis.
    In the 2000s, he proposed a method of climate engineering to restore carbon dioxide-consuming algae. He has been an outspoken member of Environmentalists for Nuclear, citing the effects of carbon dioxide as being more harmful to the environment, and warning of global warming due to the greenhouse effect. He has written several environmental science books based upon the Gaia hypothesis since the late 1970s.


    In the mid-1950s, Lovelock experimented with the cryopreservation of rodents, determining that hamsters could be frozen with 60% of the water in the brain crystallized into ice with no adverse effects recorded. Other organs were shown to be susceptible to damage.[11] The results were influential in the theories of cryonics.
    A lifelong inventor, Lovelock has created and developed many scientific instruments, some of which were designed for NASA in its planetary exploration program. It was while working as a consultant for NASA that Lovelock developed the Gaia hypothesis, for which he is most widely known.
    In early 1961, Lovelock was engaged by NASA to develop sensitive instruments for the analysis of extraterrestrial atmospheres and planetary surfaces. The Viking program, which visited Mars in the late 1970s, was motivated in part to determine whether Mars supported life, and many of the sensors and experiments that were ultimately deployed aimed to resolve this issue. During work on a precursor of this program, Lovelock became interested in the composition of the Martian atmosphere, reasoning that many life forms on Mars would be obliged to make use of it (and, thus, alter it). However, the atmosphere was found to be in a stable condition close to its chemical equilibrium, with very little oxygen, methane, or hydrogen, but with an overwhelming abundance of carbon dioxide. To Lovelock, the stark contrast between the Martian atmosphere and chemically dynamic mixture of the Earth's biosphere was strongly indicative of the absence of life on Mars.[12] However, when they were finally launched to Mars, the Viking probes still searched (unsuccessfully) for extant life there. Further experiments to search for life on Mars have been carried out by further space probes, most recently NASA'S 2012 Curiosity Rover.

    Electron capture detector developed by Lovelock, and in the Science Museum, London
    Lovelock had invented the electron capture detector, which ultimately assisted in discoveries about the persistence of CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion.[13][14][15] After studying the operation of the Earth's sulphur cycle,[16] Lovelock and his colleagues, Robert Jay Charlson, Meinrat Andreae and Stephen G. Warren developed the CLAW hypothesis as a possible example of biological control of the Earth's climate.[17]
    Lovelock was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974.[18] He served as the president of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) from 1986 to 1990, and has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford (formerly Green College, Oxford) since 1994.
    As an independent scientist, inventor, and author, Lovelock worked out of a barn-turned-laboratory he called his "experimental station" located in a wooded valley on the Devon/Cornwall border in the South West England.[19]
    On 8 May 2012, he appeared on the Radio Four series The Life Scientific, talking to Jim al-Khalili about the Gaia hypothesis. On the programme, he mentioned how his ideas had been received by various people, including Jonathan Porritt. He also mentioned how he had a claim for inventing the microwave oven. He later explained this claim in an interview with The Manchester Magazine. Lovelock said that he did create an instrument during his time studying causes of damage to living cells and tissue, which had, according to him, "almost everything you would expect in an ordinary microwave oven". He invented the instrument for the purpose of heating up frozen hamsters in a way that caused less suffering to the animals, as opposed to the traditional way which involved putting red hot spoons on the animals' chest to heat them up. He believes that at the time, nobody had gone that far and made an embodiment of an actual microwave oven.[20] However, he does not claim to have been the first person to have the idea of using microwaves for cooking.[6]
     

    Crazy Jimmy wrote to me:

    You like to smear, don’t you.

    No. I don’t “like” it. I love it; I exult in it; I consider it a supreme service to mankind.

    If the person deserves it.

    I frankly have never understood why it is wrong to “smear” someone if they are already, by their own choice, covered in excrement.

    Take, for example, your own hero, Crazy Lovelock.

    As you said, he had a “PhD in medicine.”

    Not in some relevant science, such as physics or earth science.

    Now, of course, it is possible to be a genius in some field in which one does not have a PhD, but a PhD in a non-relevant field is not a basis for confidence.

    Of course, if Lovelock had had any idea what he was talking about in the Gaia nonsense, he could have just explained it in a way that made sense to competent scientists.

    But he didn’t.

    As the Wikipedia article accurately states:

    While the [Gaia] hypothesis was readily accepted by many in the environmentalist community, it has not been widely accepted within the scientific community as a whole. Among its most prominent critics are the evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins, Ford Doolittle, and Stephen Jay Gould, a convergence of opinion among a trio whose views on other scientific matters often diverge. These (and other) critics have questioned how natural selection operating on individual organisms can lead to the evolution of planetary-scale homeostasis.

    Well, a bit too kind (it avoids the word “crackpot”!), but that is the point.

    His “Gaia hypothesis” is on the scale with the crazy Nazi inside-out-earth theory.

    I mean, maybe you can make a funny fantasy novel out of it… but what is the actual scientific mechanism being proposed?

    Blank.

    Y’know, a few years ago, some idiot on the Web told me that he had figured out the truth about superstring theory: strings, you see, are just the edge of a folded sheet, sort of like when you fold a sheet of paper. When I asked him what his actual theory was, he said that working that out in detail was my job as a physicist — he had given me the brilliant idea to work with and now I needed to get on with it.

    I lit into this moron and explained to him that silly little metaphors are a dime a dozen: a six-year-old with a bit of imagination can spin them out. Here are a few I’m just spinning out right now:

    > The points of space are like the the sharp tip of a cone: these cone-like points are so close together that they seem continuous to us.

    > When we do a quantum measurement, it ‘s like taking a highlight marker and yellow-marking a particular physical phenomenon.

    > Cosmic “dark energy” is like a soup broth in which material objects float as the chunks of meat and vegetables float in soup.

    > Evolution is like cutting your fingernails: species that go extinct are the part of your nails that you cut off, and the quick is the species that survive.

    The four examples that I just gave are utter and complete nonsense that I just made up (I particularly like the fingernail one!); intentionally meaningless word salad.

    But, they are no more stupid than my acquaintance’s “superstrings-as-edges” theory or Lovelock’s “Gaia hypothesis.”

    I know that scientific ignoramuses such as you or Lovelock read some pop science book that, say, uses the metaphor of the solar system to explain the atom, and think that is what science is about: arresting metaphors.

    It’s not. The devil is in the details.

    Lovelock’s “Gaia hypothesis” is not an actual hypothesis, my acquaintance’s “theory” about superstrings was not a theory, and the four examples I made up myself above are just cow droppings.

    Can you grasp this?

    (No, of course you can’t: no more than the brain-damaged woman I know could learn calculus. Maybe someday we will actually decide to teach science in American schools.)

  174. @PhysicistDave
    Missy McKenna wrote to me:

    Good one! You can’t even figure out what’s so very sad about bragging on the internet when it’s explained to you.
     
    Oh, I understand: it means behaving like you.

    A loser with no achievements in life who hates it if anyone casually mentions anything of value they have done.

    You see, sometimes adults actually talk about their life experiences. Without embarrassment.

    Well, okay, there are people like you for whom your whole life is an embarrassment.

    Missy McKenna -- the PeeWee Herman of isteve!

    Missy's slogan: she has so much to be modest about.

    P.S. to anyone reading this: I have no idea why McKenna has been going after me personally for weeks, but since she seems to like playing the "Don Rickles" game, I am loath to deprive her of her sole source of enjoyment!

    You go, Missy girrrrl!!

    Whoa, I nearly missed this one. Your chef d’oeuvre, I daresay? Doubtful.

    It’s mind-blowing that a grown man–much less an old man–could write like that.

    Of all your many antic notions, my favorite is probably your belief that posts such as that one make other people look bad. But don’t stop now–keep digging. China’s thataway.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    You go, Missy girrrrrrrrll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  175. @Mr McKenna
    Whoa, I nearly missed this one. Your chef d'oeuvre, I daresay? Doubtful.

    It's mind-blowing that a grown man--much less an old man--could write like that.

    Of all your many antic notions, my favorite is probably your belief that posts such as that one make other people look bad. But don't stop now--keep digging. China's thataway.

    You go, Missy girrrrrrrrll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  176. @PhysicistDave
    TAG wrote to me:

    So there aren’t any. I guess the physics aren’t so simple after all.
     
    Wrong. Greenhouse gases are a blanket.

    The physics is the same, to first order. The fact that you do not know any physics is not my fault.

    There is an interesting meta-narrative here: you and crazy Jimmy Speaks both know no physics.

    You, based on your ignorance of physics, deny the very simple physical analysis that shows that anthropogenic CO2 will indeed make the climate warmer than it otherwise would be.

    Crazy Jimmy, on the other hand, is crudely rude to me because I know and he doesn't know that working out the detalis of the climate feedback loops (not to mention the natural variability of the climate and even the sun) is exceedingly difficult, so that no one actually knows what fraction of global warming is due to humans, much less what the future course of climate will be.

    I know a fifty-year-old woman who does not know the multiplication table. Her IQ is jsut too low, almost certainly due to brain damage due to anoxia at the time of birth (info from her mom). Some things are just beyond her.

    Similarly, you simply cannot understand (or do not want to) why a greenhouse gas is a blanket.

    And, from the completely opposite side, crazy Jimmy simply cannot understand how science works.

    If we could just do a Vulcan mind-meld between you and Jimmy... perhaps we would end up with a sane human being!

    Except in the mix of gases that blanket the Earth, CO2 is the lace pillow sham. Again, if CO2 being released from fossil fuel combustion is THE problem, then we can point to it and do something about it, like the way we removed heavy metals from the American environment. But the experiments don’t get run, apparently because they don’t generate the results people want. This is a solution–tax and spend–in search of a problem.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Sorry for the delay in replying; this is now an old thread.

    You and I agree that the Left is using global warming as a political tool to increase the size and power of the state and, not incidentally, the Left itself.

    Of course, the closest we can come to doing an "experiment" on the global climate is to create models and then wait and see if the actual climate over the next couple decades tracks the models.

    So far, no: the models stink.

    But, what I am trying to emphasize is that this is actually normal in science. Even when we know the fundamental applicable laws, to correctly apply those laws to complicated systems is very, very difficult. A current example, that fortunately is not politicized, is high-temperature superconductivity. We know the underlying physical laws, but we cannot (yet) figure out how to explain high-temperature superconductivity from those fundamental laws.

    But, again, that is normal: this is why truly ground-breaking scientists -- Einstein, Darwin, Newton, et al. -- are rightly viewed as really brilliant people.

    The real problem with global-climate modeling is that it is being sold to the public by dishonest politicians, journalists, and, yes, some complicit scientists as if climate modeling were no longer an ongoing research project but rather a reliable means of predicting the future.

    That's just a total misreading of how science works: what makes science exciting is when we face some problem that we understand well enough that we think we can eventually makes sense of it, but we don't see how to yet. Almost any scientist will tell you that science is not just a mass of settled results but is also the ongoing process of trying to understand stuff that we do not yet understand.

    The global climate is in this latter category. We know that CO2 warms the globe a bit (not much by itself, to be sure); we know there are a bunch of positive and negative feedbacks involving H2O (water vapor, clouds, etc); we know that wind patterns, vegetation, the oceans, etc. all matter -- but putting it all together to get reliable predictions of future climate? No, we cannot yet do that.

    It would be a good thing for all sides of the debate if everyone would just admit to these obvious human limitations.

  177. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Except in the mix of gases that blanket the Earth, CO2 is the lace pillow sham. Again, if CO2 being released from fossil fuel combustion is THE problem, then we can point to it and do something about it, like the way we removed heavy metals from the American environment. But the experiments don't get run, apparently because they don't generate the results people want. This is a solution--tax and spend--in search of a problem.

    Sorry for the delay in replying; this is now an old thread.

    You and I agree that the Left is using global warming as a political tool to increase the size and power of the state and, not incidentally, the Left itself.

    Of course, the closest we can come to doing an “experiment” on the global climate is to create models and then wait and see if the actual climate over the next couple decades tracks the models.

    So far, no: the models stink.

    But, what I am trying to emphasize is that this is actually normal in science. Even when we know the fundamental applicable laws, to correctly apply those laws to complicated systems is very, very difficult. A current example, that fortunately is not politicized, is high-temperature superconductivity. We know the underlying physical laws, but we cannot (yet) figure out how to explain high-temperature superconductivity from those fundamental laws.

    But, again, that is normal: this is why truly ground-breaking scientists — Einstein, Darwin, Newton, et al. — are rightly viewed as really brilliant people.

    The real problem with global-climate modeling is that it is being sold to the public by dishonest politicians, journalists, and, yes, some complicit scientists as if climate modeling were no longer an ongoing research project but rather a reliable means of predicting the future.

    That’s just a total misreading of how science works: what makes science exciting is when we face some problem that we understand well enough that we think we can eventually makes sense of it, but we don’t see how to yet. Almost any scientist will tell you that science is not just a mass of settled results but is also the ongoing process of trying to understand stuff that we do not yet understand.

    The global climate is in this latter category. We know that CO2 warms the globe a bit (not much by itself, to be sure); we know there are a bunch of positive and negative feedbacks involving H2O (water vapor, clouds, etc); we know that wind patterns, vegetation, the oceans, etc. all matter — but putting it all together to get reliable predictions of future climate? No, we cannot yet do that.

    It would be a good thing for all sides of the debate if everyone would just admit to these obvious human limitations.

  178. @stillCARealist
    Say what? Yes, it's been a wet winter here this year, but Old Yeller speaks much truth. In my area of Northern CA, we have "scrub oaks" and "scrub brush" everywhere. It's a handy way to describe flora and fauna that can survive during long droughts, including the 6 months each year when it doesn't rain.

    The reason CA is so fertile and productive is the water planning of our forefathers who built the dams and reservoirs and canals and levies and pumps... environmentalists, in their purest forms, would tear all that apart in seconds.

    First of all, Feinstein, Pelosi, and their cronies have found ways to legally divert millions of gallons of freshwater into the Sacramento River Delta (the east end of the San Francisco Bay). Apparently they consider agriculture a hate crime of some sort and they are working to eradicate it. Secondly, there’s a technology called “desalination” that it seems few Democrats have heard of, or which they consider to be another crime of some sort. Finally, Feinstein’s friends the Resnicks seem to have plenty of water for their huge agricultural holdings at the south end of the Central Valley. Of course, I’m quite sure their superabundance of freshwater has nothing to do with their massive cash donations to the Democratic Party.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?