THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 24, 2019 at 6:45 pm
Paul Plante says :
And what is interesting and ironic here is that while the Democrats are endlessly prattling on about our precious democracy being under attack by foreign elements, they are at the same time paying homage to what is the most un-democratic body on the face of the earth, that being this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC.
According to its history, the United Nations formally endorsed the creation of the IPCC in 1988 in a resolution full of wishy-washy weasel words to include as follows:
“(C)ertain human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially severe economic and social consequences”; and
“[C]ontinued growth in atmospheric concentrations of ‘greenhouse’ gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.”
end quotes
So it could, and it might, and maybe it will but then again, if it could, it also might not, and round and round we go on that, which takes us back to the un-democratic nature of the IPCC as follows:
The Panel itself is composed of representatives appointed by governments.
Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives.
Non-Governmental and Intergovernmental Organizations admitted as observer organizations may also attend.
Sessions of the Panel, IPCC Bureau, workshops, expert and lead authors meetings are by invitation only.
The opening ceremonies of sessions of the Panel and of Lead Author Meetings are open to media, but otherwise IPCC meetings are closed.
end quotes
Dogs, Irishmen, and other white trash who are not committed members of the carbon pollution crisis cult and true believers need not apply, because you won’t make it past security at the door.
So much for our precious democracy, people – it is a joke, which again takes us back to the political nature of the IPCC, as follows:
The IPCC has published five comprehensive assessment reports reviewing the latest climate science, as well as a number of special reports on particular topics.
These reports are prepared by teams of relevant researchers selected by the Bureau from government nominations.
end quotes
Ah, yes, people – researchers selected from government nominations, and if one is not nominated by a government for its own political purposes, one is left completely outside the process, on the outside looking in, and that is what the Democrats want us to believe is valid, independent scientific inquiry.
To which I must respectfully respond – not hardly.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-190166
ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 25, 2019 at 6:55 pm
Paul Plante says :
After re-reading the original post, which is full of essential details pertaining to this so-called “scandal,” which is only a “scandal” because it got exposed, when it really is bidness as usual in the Church of Science, where it is much more the search for the next gold dollar than it is any kind of search for the “truth,” which is deemed the business of theologians and philosophers, not scientists, especially those in it for the money, I wanted to highlight the final sentences of the original post where we were told that back in 2006, eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “hockey stick”, wherein he excoriated the way in which this same “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang.
One, in my experience of talking about this subject, it has been my experience that it is a non-subject – people think it is all just political bull****, which it has become, where nothing is believable anymore, and so they completely miss the point that while it all is now bull****, where any kernels of wheat that might be there are so buried in chaff it is almost impossible to find them, nonetheless, much of the future of the US and world economy do in fact hang on these IPCC reports, which are anything but science, given how they are created and then vetted.
So all of that part of the equation is sliding right under the radar, because people are sick of hearing about climate change, when they do not perceive any change, especially now that winter is approaching in the northern hemisphere where it is getting colder, not warmer, regardless of what the climate crisis cult crowd might say about it.
By way of some more essential background to this very important subject which too many people in America are unaware of, given the time that has gone by, along with the very esoteric nature of the “scandal,” no sex or drugs being overtly involved, anyway, which renders it mundane, in March 2010, at the invitation of the United Nations secretary-general and the chair of the IPCC, the Inter Academy Council (IAC) was asked to review the IPCC’s processes for developing its reports.
That IAC panel, chaired by Harold Tafler Shapiro, convened on 14 May 2010 and released its report on 1 September 2010. with the following formal recommendation for improving the IPCC’s assessment process, to wit: “Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence.”
end quotes
In other words, stop the ******* hype and fear-mongering.
The panel also advised that the IPCC avoid appearing to advocate specific policies in response to its scientific conclusions.
Of importance to this article, commenting on the IAC report, Nature News noted that “The proposals were met with a largely favourable response from climate researchers who are eager to move on after the media scandals and credibility challenges that have rocked the United Nations body during the past nine months”.
end quotes
Ah, yes, media scandals and credibility challenges, and those credibility challenges have not only continued to this day, but in my estimation, they have gotten worse, to the point that all scientists are now looked on by the common person as fools.
And that takes us back to the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy, which underlies the “Climate-gate scandal.”
As Wikipedia tells us, and it never was any kind of secret, the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research, which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.
The Soon and Baliunas paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper, and the controversy resulted in the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and in the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.
Going back further in time, because the roots of this controversy are really back in the early-1900s, if not earlier, with respect to the IPCC and the scandals associated with it, by the late 1980s scientific findings indicated that greenhouse gases including CO2 emissions were leading to global warming.
However, and this is with respect to the statement in the original post that “(T)he worry is that it seems that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific inquiry and debate,” which I do not deny, the original “science” at issue here is found in “Worlds in the Making – The Evolution of the Universe” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute, Stockholm, copyright, 1908, where we have as follows with respect to the carbon dioxide theories we are being confronted with today, as we hear the doom-and-gloom prediction that the world is about to end, to wit:
The earth is able to serve as the abode of living Beings because its outer portions are cooled to a suitable temperature (below 55) by radiation, and because the cooling does not proceed so far that the open sea would continually be frozen over, and that the temperature on the Continent would always remain below freezing-point.
We owe this favorable intermediate stage to the fact that the radiation from the sun balances the loss of heat by radiation into space, and that it is capable of maintaining the greater portion of the surface of the earth at a temperature above the freezing-point of water.
The temperature conditioning life on a planet is therefore maintained only because, on the one side, light and heat are received by radiation from the sun in sufficient quantities, while on the other side an equivalent radiation of heat takes place into space.
If the heat gain and the heat loss were not to balance each other, the term of suitable conditions would not last long.
end quotes
There is the “original science” that leads us up to Climate-gate, and beyond, to this thread and the debate that is going on right now concerning the “climate crisis,” as the fear-mongering Democrats in this country keep calling it, along with the mindless, thumb-sucking irresponsible mainstream media, and it is that last sentence about if the heat gain and the heat loss were not to balance each other, the term of suitable conditions would not last long that has led to this discussion today, on all the various levels it has been presented in the Cape Charles Mirror.
And that in turn takes us back to Hubert H. Lamb, founder of the CRU, and author of the authoritative tome on climate entitled “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition, where we have as follows:
In any case, many people now know that there have been significant shifts of climate during the twentieth century: at first, a more or less global warming to about 1950, then some cooling.
end quotes
Now, keep in mind that those words were written in December of 1994, and there is where the basis of the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy derives from, because boiled down to its essence, to believe the “Hockey Stick” model, that cooling after 1950 that many people knew about in 1994 has to be made to go away, which is to say the real science that led to the creation of the CRU in the first place has to be discredited and rejected, which is fairly incredible.
The “new” science of the IPCC replaces all science that came before it to support a single conclusion that is at odds with the science the new science is replacing.
And that brings us back to Lamb in 1994, as follows:
The former assumption of constancy of climate is thus widely felt to be unsatisfactory today.
And, after many decades in which there was little or no inquiry about climatic development and change, the leading institutes of meteorology and climatology are now pressed for advice on future climate.
The position is doubly unfortunate in that the forecast opinions ventured by the ‘experts’ have often increased the confusion, the views of the theoreticians sometimes contradicting those whose study has been concentrated on reconstructing the actual past behaviour of the (natural) climate.
end quotes
And there for the moment I will rest, because right there in that last sentence, Dr. Lamb has provided us with the genesis of Climate-gate, and we all owe the Cape Charles Mirror a debt of gratitude as concerned citizens for hosting this discussion on this subject of vital importance to each and every one of us in America today, which takes us to the last sentence of the original post above, to wit:
The compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific hoax of our age.
end quotes
Stay tuned, for more is yet to come!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-190518
Paul Plante says :
After re-reading the original post, which is full of essential details pertaining to this so-called “scandal,” which is only a “scandal” because it got exposed, when it really is bidness as usual in the Church of Science, where it is much more the search for the next gold dollar than it is any kind of search for the “truth,” which is deemed the business of theologians and philosophers, not scientists, especially those in it for the money, I wanted to highlight the final sentences of the original post where we were told that back in 2006, eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “hockey stick”, wherein he excoriated the way in which this same “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang.
One, in my experience of talking about this subject, it has been my experience that it is a non-subject – people think it is all just political bull****, which it has become, where nothing is believable anymore, and so they completely miss the point that while it all is now bull****, where any kernels of wheat that might be there are so buried in chaff it is almost impossible to find them, nonetheless, much of the future of the US and world economy do in fact hang on these IPCC reports, which are anything but science, given how they are created and then vetted.
So all of that part of the equation is sliding right under the radar, because people are sick of hearing about climate change, when they do not perceive any change, especially now that winter is approaching in the northern hemisphere where it is getting colder, not warmer, regardless of what the climate crisis cult crowd might say about it.
By way of some more essential background to this very important subject which too many people in America are unaware of, given the time that has gone by, along with the very esoteric nature of the “scandal,” no sex or drugs being overtly involved, anyway, which renders it mundane, in March 2010, at the invitation of the United Nations secretary-general and the chair of the IPCC, the Inter Academy Council (IAC) was asked to review the IPCC’s processes for developing its reports.
That IAC panel, chaired by Harold Tafler Shapiro, convened on 14 May 2010 and released its report on 1 September 2010. with the following formal recommendation for improving the IPCC’s assessment process, to wit: “Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence.”
end quotes
In other words, stop the ******* hype and fear-mongering.
The panel also advised that the IPCC avoid appearing to advocate specific policies in response to its scientific conclusions.
Of importance to this article, commenting on the IAC report, Nature News noted that “The proposals were met with a largely favourable response from climate researchers who are eager to move on after the media scandals and credibility challenges that have rocked the United Nations body during the past nine months”.
end quotes
Ah, yes, media scandals and credibility challenges, and those credibility challenges have not only continued to this day, but in my estimation, they have gotten worse, to the point that all scientists are now looked on by the common person as fools.
And that takes us back to the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy, which underlies the “Climate-gate scandal.”
As Wikipedia tells us, and it never was any kind of secret, the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research, which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.
The Soon and Baliunas paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper, and the controversy resulted in the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and in the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.
Going back further in time, because the roots of this controversy are really back in the early-1900s, if not earlier, with respect to the IPCC and the scandals associated with it, by the late 1980s scientific findings indicated that greenhouse gases including CO2 emissions were leading to global warming.
However, and this is with respect to the statement in the original post that “(T)he worry is that it seems that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific inquiry and debate,” which I do not deny, the original “science” at issue here is found in “Worlds in the Making – The Evolution of the Universe” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute, Stockholm, copyright, 1908, where we have as follows with respect to the carbon dioxide theories we are being confronted with today, as we hear the doom-and-gloom prediction that the world is about to end, to wit:
The earth is able to serve as the abode of living Beings because its outer portions are cooled to a suitable temperature (below 55) by radiation, and because the cooling does not proceed so far that the open sea would continually be frozen over, and that the temperature on the Continent would always remain below freezing-point.
We owe this favorable intermediate stage to the fact that the radiation from the sun balances the loss of heat by radiation into space, and that it is capable of maintaining the greater portion of the surface of the earth at a temperature above the freezing-point of water.
The temperature conditioning life on a planet is therefore maintained only because, on the one side, light and heat are received by radiation from the sun in sufficient quantities, while on the other side an equivalent radiation of heat takes place into space.
If the heat gain and the heat loss were not to balance each other, the term of suitable conditions would not last long.
end quotes
There is the “original science” that leads us up to Climate-gate, and beyond, to this thread and the debate that is going on right now concerning the “climate crisis,” as the fear-mongering Democrats in this country keep calling it, along with the mindless, thumb-sucking irresponsible mainstream media, and it is that last sentence about if the heat gain and the heat loss were not to balance each other, the term of suitable conditions would not last long that has led to this discussion today, on all the various levels it has been presented in the Cape Charles Mirror.
And that in turn takes us back to Hubert H. Lamb, founder of the CRU, and author of the authoritative tome on climate entitled “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition, where we have as follows:
In any case, many people now know that there have been significant shifts of climate during the twentieth century: at first, a more or less global warming to about 1950, then some cooling.
end quotes
Now, keep in mind that those words were written in December of 1994, and there is where the basis of the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy derives from, because boiled down to its essence, to believe the “Hockey Stick” model, that cooling after 1950 that many people knew about in 1994 has to be made to go away, which is to say the real science that led to the creation of the CRU in the first place has to be discredited and rejected, which is fairly incredible.
The “new” science of the IPCC replaces all science that came before it to support a single conclusion that is at odds with the science the new science is replacing.
And that brings us back to Lamb in 1994, as follows:
The former assumption of constancy of climate is thus widely felt to be unsatisfactory today.
And, after many decades in which there was little or no inquiry about climatic development and change, the leading institutes of meteorology and climatology are now pressed for advice on future climate.
The position is doubly unfortunate in that the forecast opinions ventured by the ‘experts’ have often increased the confusion, the views of the theoreticians sometimes contradicting those whose study has been concentrated on reconstructing the actual past behaviour of the (natural) climate.
end quotes
And there for the moment I will rest, because right there in that last sentence, Dr. Lamb has provided us with the genesis of Climate-gate, and we all owe the Cape Charles Mirror a debt of gratitude as concerned citizens for hosting this discussion on this subject of vital importance to each and every one of us in America today, which takes us to the last sentence of the original post above, to wit:
The compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific hoax of our age.
end quotes
Stay tuned, for more is yet to come!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-190518
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 26, 2019 at 9:25 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, in the eternal search for truth, which we will never find in Washington, D.C., back and forth through history we end up going, at least with respect to carbon dioxide and the issue of earth’s ever-changing climate, which takes us back to 1994 and Hubert H. Lamb, founder of the CRU, and author of the authoritative tome on climate entitled “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition, where we have as follows:
It was known that ice ages had occurred in the distant, ‘geological’ past; but the climate in Roman times seemed to be not too much different from now, and it was assumed that this must be true of all the centuries in between.
As we shall see in later chapters, those centuries in fact brought a succession of changes in Europe and elsewhere which included a long period of evidently genial warmth in the high Middle Ages followed by the development world-wide of a colder climate, especially in and around the seventeenth century, with probably the greatest spread of ice since the last major ice age.
end quotes
And that takes us to 2003 and the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy which involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research, and from there to 2006, when eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the carbon dioxide “hockey stick”, wherein he excoriated the way in which a “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang, where we have as follows from the IPCC history, to wit:
The IPCC First Assessment Report included a “schematic diagram” of global temperature variations over the last thousand years which has been traced to a graph based loosely on Hubert Lamb’s 1965 paper.
end quotes
Lamb’s 1965 paper, which has essentially been buried in the scientific garbage can of history by his “hockey stick team” of successors at the CRU, was entitled “The early medieval warm epoch and its sequel’ and it provided as follows, to wit:
Evidence has been accumulating in many fields of investigation pointing to a notably warm climate in many parts of the world, that lasted a few centuries around A.D. 1000–1200, and was followed by a decline of temperature levels till between 1500 and 1700 the coldest phase since the last ice age occurred.
end quotes
That is what needs to be refuted for the “hockey stick” model to stand, and it can’t be refuted, because it is based on actual, not imaginary history, so throw it in the trash can instead, because nobody will know, nor will they care, especially if they can be made scared enough by the thought of the world coming to an end in the next so many years due to “carbon pollution” in the air, as the fear-mongering Democrats in the United States like to call it.
Getting back to the abstract of Lamb’s 1965 paper, we have:
The main stages of post-glacial climatic history in Europe, the warmest epoch generally known as the “Climatic Optimum” (e.g., GODWIN, 1956) from about 5000 or 6000 to 3000 B.C. (comprising the latter part of the “Boreal” and the whole of the “Atlantic” climatic periods of the older nomenclature), and the decline that introduced a cooler, stormier regime (the so-called “Sub-Atlantic”) around 500 B.C., are well-known; though they still await thorough meteorological treatment.
Till recently, it was widely held that the European climate had undergone no significant variations since that for the last 2,500 years or so the climate had been effectively constant or stable.
end quotes
That of course, is an essential requirement for the “hockey stick” model; that until the industrial age and the emissions of CO2 by humans, the earth’s climate had come to a sort of rest, which is bull****, because as history clearly shows, it never was at rest, just slowly changing, which takes us back to Lamb, as follows:
And multifarious evidence of a meteorological nature from historical records, as well as archaeological, botanical and glaciological evidence in various parts of the world from the Arctic to New Zealand (e.g., KOCH, 1945; RAESIDE, 1948; MILLER, 1953; HOLLOWAY, 1954) has been found to suggest a warmer epoch lasting several centuries between about A.D. 900 or 1000 and about 1200 or 1300.
Nothing suggests that the warmth of the early medieval period attained that of the climatic optimum; though the cold period after A.D. 1550 probably did produce the lowest temperatures and the greatest extensions of ice on land and sea since the last ice age.
It has often been called the “Little Ice Age” in consequence.
end quotes
As to science, this is what Lamb provides us with, to wit::
Palaeoclimatology is likely to be advanced by investigating first specific periods for which evidence that is sufficiently abundant and reliably dated indicates some well defined climatic character.
It was for this reason that the “ad hoe Committee on Palaeoclimatology”, formed in 1961 by the United States National Research Council, decided as its first act to hold a conference on the climates of the 11th and 16th centuries A.D., to be attended by active research workers in all relevant disciplines (ASPEN CONFERENCE, 1962).
Both the “Little Optimum” in the early Middle Ages and the cold epoch, now known to have reached its culminating stages between 1550 and 1700, can today be substantiated by enough data to repay meteorological investigation (see, for example, the preliminary treatment of both, given by LAMB, 1963).
The historical evidence is, of course, thinner for the earlier of these two epochs; nevertheless, it has been chosen for treatment here because the investigation is an interesting example of the pooling and interpretation of data from archaeology, botany, glaciology, human history, meteorology and oceanography.
end quotes
Now, in contrast to the highly-political IPCC, which is closed to the public for all practical purposes, by design, what Lamb is describing there is what I call the “old” science which needs to be replaced with “new” science indicting carbon dioxide, because for the IPCC crowd pushing the theory of carbon dioxide as pretty much the cause for everything wrong in the world today, that is where the funding is coming from, and since as we can see from the excerpt above, Lamb’s findings of temperature variations defy the “carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming” model, so somehow, Lamb had to be gotten rid of by his successors at the CRU in England so they could get their hands on some of that funding, as well as gaining considerable political power through control of the findings of the IPCC (and yes, people, scientists are as political as all get-out where it concerns money coming into their pocket) and that is where the hockey stick is going to come in, to wit:
The IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) of 1996 featured a graph of an early northern hemisphere reconstruction by Raymond S. Bradley and Phil Jones, and noted the 1994 reconstruction by Hughes and Henry F. Diaz questioning how widespread the Medieval Warm Period had been at any one time.
In 1998, Mann, Bradley and Hughes published a multiproxy study (MBH98) which used a new statistical approach to find patterns of climate change in both time and global distribution, over the past six centuries.
In 1999 they extended their approach to 1,000 years in a study (MBH99) summarised in a graph which showed relatively little change until a sharp rise in the 20th century, earning it the nickname of the hockey stick graph.
In 2001 the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) included a version of this graph which was frequently featured in literature publicising the findings of the IPCC report that the 1990s were likely to have been the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the past millennium in the Northern Hemisphere.
After the publicity the MBH99 study had been given by the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the hockey stick controversy developed in which the graph was targeted by those opposing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, including Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.
end quotes
And there for the moment, I will let this saga rest.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-190889
Paul Plante says :
So, in the eternal search for truth, which we will never find in Washington, D.C., back and forth through history we end up going, at least with respect to carbon dioxide and the issue of earth’s ever-changing climate, which takes us back to 1994 and Hubert H. Lamb, founder of the CRU, and author of the authoritative tome on climate entitled “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition, where we have as follows:
It was known that ice ages had occurred in the distant, ‘geological’ past; but the climate in Roman times seemed to be not too much different from now, and it was assumed that this must be true of all the centuries in between.
As we shall see in later chapters, those centuries in fact brought a succession of changes in Europe and elsewhere which included a long period of evidently genial warmth in the high Middle Ages followed by the development world-wide of a colder climate, especially in and around the seventeenth century, with probably the greatest spread of ice since the last major ice age.
end quotes
And that takes us to 2003 and the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy which involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research, and from there to 2006, when eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the carbon dioxide “hockey stick”, wherein he excoriated the way in which a “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang, where we have as follows from the IPCC history, to wit:
The IPCC First Assessment Report included a “schematic diagram” of global temperature variations over the last thousand years which has been traced to a graph based loosely on Hubert Lamb’s 1965 paper.
end quotes
Lamb’s 1965 paper, which has essentially been buried in the scientific garbage can of history by his “hockey stick team” of successors at the CRU, was entitled “The early medieval warm epoch and its sequel’ and it provided as follows, to wit:
Evidence has been accumulating in many fields of investigation pointing to a notably warm climate in many parts of the world, that lasted a few centuries around A.D. 1000–1200, and was followed by a decline of temperature levels till between 1500 and 1700 the coldest phase since the last ice age occurred.
end quotes
That is what needs to be refuted for the “hockey stick” model to stand, and it can’t be refuted, because it is based on actual, not imaginary history, so throw it in the trash can instead, because nobody will know, nor will they care, especially if they can be made scared enough by the thought of the world coming to an end in the next so many years due to “carbon pollution” in the air, as the fear-mongering Democrats in the United States like to call it.
Getting back to the abstract of Lamb’s 1965 paper, we have:
The main stages of post-glacial climatic history in Europe, the warmest epoch generally known as the “Climatic Optimum” (e.g., GODWIN, 1956) from about 5000 or 6000 to 3000 B.C. (comprising the latter part of the “Boreal” and the whole of the “Atlantic” climatic periods of the older nomenclature), and the decline that introduced a cooler, stormier regime (the so-called “Sub-Atlantic”) around 500 B.C., are well-known; though they still await thorough meteorological treatment.
Till recently, it was widely held that the European climate had undergone no significant variations since that for the last 2,500 years or so the climate had been effectively constant or stable.
end quotes
That of course, is an essential requirement for the “hockey stick” model; that until the industrial age and the emissions of CO2 by humans, the earth’s climate had come to a sort of rest, which is bull****, because as history clearly shows, it never was at rest, just slowly changing, which takes us back to Lamb, as follows:
And multifarious evidence of a meteorological nature from historical records, as well as archaeological, botanical and glaciological evidence in various parts of the world from the Arctic to New Zealand (e.g., KOCH, 1945; RAESIDE, 1948; MILLER, 1953; HOLLOWAY, 1954) has been found to suggest a warmer epoch lasting several centuries between about A.D. 900 or 1000 and about 1200 or 1300.
Nothing suggests that the warmth of the early medieval period attained that of the climatic optimum; though the cold period after A.D. 1550 probably did produce the lowest temperatures and the greatest extensions of ice on land and sea since the last ice age.
It has often been called the “Little Ice Age” in consequence.
end quotes
As to science, this is what Lamb provides us with, to wit::
Palaeoclimatology is likely to be advanced by investigating first specific periods for which evidence that is sufficiently abundant and reliably dated indicates some well defined climatic character.
It was for this reason that the “ad hoe Committee on Palaeoclimatology”, formed in 1961 by the United States National Research Council, decided as its first act to hold a conference on the climates of the 11th and 16th centuries A.D., to be attended by active research workers in all relevant disciplines (ASPEN CONFERENCE, 1962).
Both the “Little Optimum” in the early Middle Ages and the cold epoch, now known to have reached its culminating stages between 1550 and 1700, can today be substantiated by enough data to repay meteorological investigation (see, for example, the preliminary treatment of both, given by LAMB, 1963).
The historical evidence is, of course, thinner for the earlier of these two epochs; nevertheless, it has been chosen for treatment here because the investigation is an interesting example of the pooling and interpretation of data from archaeology, botany, glaciology, human history, meteorology and oceanography.
end quotes
Now, in contrast to the highly-political IPCC, which is closed to the public for all practical purposes, by design, what Lamb is describing there is what I call the “old” science which needs to be replaced with “new” science indicting carbon dioxide, because for the IPCC crowd pushing the theory of carbon dioxide as pretty much the cause for everything wrong in the world today, that is where the funding is coming from, and since as we can see from the excerpt above, Lamb’s findings of temperature variations defy the “carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming” model, so somehow, Lamb had to be gotten rid of by his successors at the CRU in England so they could get their hands on some of that funding, as well as gaining considerable political power through control of the findings of the IPCC (and yes, people, scientists are as political as all get-out where it concerns money coming into their pocket) and that is where the hockey stick is going to come in, to wit:
The IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) of 1996 featured a graph of an early northern hemisphere reconstruction by Raymond S. Bradley and Phil Jones, and noted the 1994 reconstruction by Hughes and Henry F. Diaz questioning how widespread the Medieval Warm Period had been at any one time.
In 1998, Mann, Bradley and Hughes published a multiproxy study (MBH98) which used a new statistical approach to find patterns of climate change in both time and global distribution, over the past six centuries.
In 1999 they extended their approach to 1,000 years in a study (MBH99) summarised in a graph which showed relatively little change until a sharp rise in the 20th century, earning it the nickname of the hockey stick graph.
In 2001 the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) included a version of this graph which was frequently featured in literature publicising the findings of the IPCC report that the 1990s were likely to have been the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the past millennium in the Northern Hemisphere.
After the publicity the MBH99 study had been given by the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the hockey stick controversy developed in which the graph was targeted by those opposing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, including Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.
end quotes
And there for the moment, I will let this saga rest.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-190889
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 27, 2019 at 6:19 pm
Paul Plante says :
And here we need to bring Hans von Storch, born 13 August 1949, into the narrative.
von Storch is a German climate scientist who is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and since 2001, the Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre, previously GKSS Research Center, in Geesthacht, Germany who is also a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics.
With respect to this discussion, von Storch is known for an article in Der Spiegel he co-wrote with Nico Stehr, which states thusly and quite correctly as follows:
“Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information.”
end quotes
And my goodness, people, how very true that is, as we can see from the hyperbolic reactions of the main stream media to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) which document was approved at the IPCC’s 51st Session (IPCC-51) in September 2019 in Monaco, and after that, was placed in the hands of the 16-year old Greta Thunberg so she could sail across the Atlantic Ocean with it in a hi-tech carbon-fiber racing sailboat while making a movie of herself before appearing before our Congress to present them with the report and demand they take immediate action on it, as if our Congress takes its marching orders from a 16-year old girl from Sweden who wants us all to panic so we can experience the fear of God-alone-knows-what she feels every day as an emotionally-disturbed teenager.
According to Wikipedia, those media reactions were as follows:
The New York Times headlined their September 25 article with ‘We’re All in Big Trouble’.
According to the Times, “Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen.”
The article cited Princeton University’s Michael Oppenheimer, who was one of the report’s lead authors who said that, “The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too.”
“The changes are accelerating.”
A second lead author, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, was quoted as saying in Monaco, that “Climate change is already irreversible.”
“Due to the heat uptake in the ocean, we can’t go back.”
The BBC headline referred to a red alert on the Blue Planet.
The Economist said that the “world’s oceans are getting warmer, stormier and more acidic.”
“They are becoming less productive as the ecosystems within them collapse.”
“Melting glaciers and ice sheets are causing sea levels to rise, increasing the risk of inundation and devastation to hundreds of millions of people living in coastal areas.”
PBS News Hour cited National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Ko Barrett, who is also a vice chair of IPCC, saying, “Taken together, these changes show that the world’s ocean and cryosphere have been taking the heat for climate change for decades.”
“The consequences for nature are sweeping and severe.”
The Atlantic called it a blockbuster report.
National Geographic said that according to the report, “These challenges are only going to get worse unless countries make lightning-fast moves to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions…”
“But strong, decisive action could still forestall or evade some of the worst impacts.”
end quotes
Which takes us back to Hans von Storch, as follows:
“The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad.”
In December 2009, he expressed concern about the credibility of science and criticized some publicly visible scientists for simplifying and dramatizing their communications.
An observer wrote in 2004: “The damage for the scientists is enormous.”
“Nobody believes them any longer.”
In January 2011, Storch was counted among the 100 most influential Germans by the Focus magazine for being a “climate realist”.
On 20 June 2013 Storch stated “So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break.”
“We’re facing a puzzle.”
“Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared.”
“As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years.”
“That hasn’t happened.”
“In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero.”
“This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.”
As to Climate-gate, von Storch, said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had “violated a fundamental principle of science” by refusing to share data with other researchers.
“They play science as a power game,” he said.
And boy, is it ever, people – BEWARE, don’t feed the scientists – they bite.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-191206
Paul Plante says :
And here we need to bring Hans von Storch, born 13 August 1949, into the narrative.
von Storch is a German climate scientist who is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and since 2001, the Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre, previously GKSS Research Center, in Geesthacht, Germany who is also a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics.
With respect to this discussion, von Storch is known for an article in Der Spiegel he co-wrote with Nico Stehr, which states thusly and quite correctly as follows:
“Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information.”
end quotes
And my goodness, people, how very true that is, as we can see from the hyperbolic reactions of the main stream media to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) which document was approved at the IPCC’s 51st Session (IPCC-51) in September 2019 in Monaco, and after that, was placed in the hands of the 16-year old Greta Thunberg so she could sail across the Atlantic Ocean with it in a hi-tech carbon-fiber racing sailboat while making a movie of herself before appearing before our Congress to present them with the report and demand they take immediate action on it, as if our Congress takes its marching orders from a 16-year old girl from Sweden who wants us all to panic so we can experience the fear of God-alone-knows-what she feels every day as an emotionally-disturbed teenager.
According to Wikipedia, those media reactions were as follows:
The New York Times headlined their September 25 article with ‘We’re All in Big Trouble’.
According to the Times, “Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen.”
The article cited Princeton University’s Michael Oppenheimer, who was one of the report’s lead authors who said that, “The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too.”
“The changes are accelerating.”
A second lead author, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, was quoted as saying in Monaco, that “Climate change is already irreversible.”
“Due to the heat uptake in the ocean, we can’t go back.”
The BBC headline referred to a red alert on the Blue Planet.
The Economist said that the “world’s oceans are getting warmer, stormier and more acidic.”
“They are becoming less productive as the ecosystems within them collapse.”
“Melting glaciers and ice sheets are causing sea levels to rise, increasing the risk of inundation and devastation to hundreds of millions of people living in coastal areas.”
PBS News Hour cited National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Ko Barrett, who is also a vice chair of IPCC, saying, “Taken together, these changes show that the world’s ocean and cryosphere have been taking the heat for climate change for decades.”
“The consequences for nature are sweeping and severe.”
The Atlantic called it a blockbuster report.
National Geographic said that according to the report, “These challenges are only going to get worse unless countries make lightning-fast moves to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions…”
“But strong, decisive action could still forestall or evade some of the worst impacts.”
end quotes
Which takes us back to Hans von Storch, as follows:
“The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad.”
In December 2009, he expressed concern about the credibility of science and criticized some publicly visible scientists for simplifying and dramatizing their communications.
An observer wrote in 2004: “The damage for the scientists is enormous.”
“Nobody believes them any longer.”
In January 2011, Storch was counted among the 100 most influential Germans by the Focus magazine for being a “climate realist”.
On 20 June 2013 Storch stated “So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break.”
“We’re facing a puzzle.”
“Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared.”
“As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years.”
“That hasn’t happened.”
“In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero.”
“This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.”
As to Climate-gate, von Storch, said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had “violated a fundamental principle of science” by refusing to share data with other researchers.
“They play science as a power game,” he said.
And boy, is it ever, people – BEWARE, don’t feed the scientists – they bite.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-191206
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 29, 2019 at 10:54 am
Paul Plante says:
So, cutting to the chase here, as that old saying goes, what really is the “science” here?
Is there any basis in reality for any of this “science” we are having thrown in our faces today by the media, which is telling us that we had better repent because the world is about to come to an end?
And that answer, which also serves to demonstrate how ignorant the media is, is found in “Worlds in the Making – The Evolution of the Universe” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute, Stockholm, published in 1908.
With respect to Arrhenius and how he fits into this equation we in our times are confronted with, this so-called “climate crisis” the Democrats are flogging us with as we head into the 2020 presidential elections the Democrats hope to sweep, I received this following on 23 September 2019 from a top NOAA climate scientist, to wit:
The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere today are ones that likely haven’t been reached in 3 million years, and frankly the linkage between carbon dioxide and rising temperatures has been realized by scientists dating back to 1856 (see https://www.climate.gov/news-features/f ... ce-pioneer), with a major paper describing this that actually dates back to the Swedish scientist 1896 Arrhenius [see https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu ... s_2.php%5D; his estimates of the actual temperature rise with rises in CO2 may have been a bit over-estimated, but he got the basic science right.
end quotes
Now, while I am a graduate level engineer who is well aware of all of that, the fact of the matter is that Arrhenius is high school level “science,” which is to say, you do not need a college degree to understand it; and everything we are being told today about CO2 by this IPCC crowd, who seem to me to be “cherry-picking” science to cover over certain points, while emphasizing others, comes to us through Arrhenius.
So that for the DOOM-AND-GLOOM “findings” of the IPCC crowd to be believable, there would have to be some way to derive them from the “basic science” that Arrhenius “got right,” according to the NOAA scientist, who also is one of those who does the alleged “peer-review” for the IPCC, because “advanced” science must have its basis in “basic” science if it is to stand!
And since we have the word of a top scientist who does peer-review for the IPCC that Arrhenius got the basic science right back in 1896, long before there was an IPCC, we are faced with the essential existential question of do the modern findings of the IPCC agree with the basic science that Arrhenius got right back in 1896?
And if they don’t, given that the top scientist says Arrhenius got the “basic science” right, then what does that say about the findings of the IPCC if they disagree with the “basic science” of Arrhenius?
Ponder that thought, people, because our collective future as a nation and as a “free” people depends very much on how that question is to be answered in our times today.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-191819
Paul Plante says:
So, cutting to the chase here, as that old saying goes, what really is the “science” here?
Is there any basis in reality for any of this “science” we are having thrown in our faces today by the media, which is telling us that we had better repent because the world is about to come to an end?
And that answer, which also serves to demonstrate how ignorant the media is, is found in “Worlds in the Making – The Evolution of the Universe” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute, Stockholm, published in 1908.
With respect to Arrhenius and how he fits into this equation we in our times are confronted with, this so-called “climate crisis” the Democrats are flogging us with as we head into the 2020 presidential elections the Democrats hope to sweep, I received this following on 23 September 2019 from a top NOAA climate scientist, to wit:
The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere today are ones that likely haven’t been reached in 3 million years, and frankly the linkage between carbon dioxide and rising temperatures has been realized by scientists dating back to 1856 (see https://www.climate.gov/news-features/f ... ce-pioneer), with a major paper describing this that actually dates back to the Swedish scientist 1896 Arrhenius [see https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu ... s_2.php%5D; his estimates of the actual temperature rise with rises in CO2 may have been a bit over-estimated, but he got the basic science right.
end quotes
Now, while I am a graduate level engineer who is well aware of all of that, the fact of the matter is that Arrhenius is high school level “science,” which is to say, you do not need a college degree to understand it; and everything we are being told today about CO2 by this IPCC crowd, who seem to me to be “cherry-picking” science to cover over certain points, while emphasizing others, comes to us through Arrhenius.
So that for the DOOM-AND-GLOOM “findings” of the IPCC crowd to be believable, there would have to be some way to derive them from the “basic science” that Arrhenius “got right,” according to the NOAA scientist, who also is one of those who does the alleged “peer-review” for the IPCC, because “advanced” science must have its basis in “basic” science if it is to stand!
And since we have the word of a top scientist who does peer-review for the IPCC that Arrhenius got the basic science right back in 1896, long before there was an IPCC, we are faced with the essential existential question of do the modern findings of the IPCC agree with the basic science that Arrhenius got right back in 1896?
And if they don’t, given that the top scientist says Arrhenius got the “basic science” right, then what does that say about the findings of the IPCC if they disagree with the “basic science” of Arrhenius?
Ponder that thought, people, because our collective future as a nation and as a “free” people depends very much on how that question is to be answered in our times today.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-191819
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 29, 2019 at 6:58 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, people, what is the “basic science” that Arrhenius got right over a hundred years ago now?
Instead of musing about it, let us go right to the source, which is “Worlds in the Making – The Evolution of the Universe” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute, Stockholm, published in 1908, where we have the beginnings of the “greenhouse gas” theory as follows:
That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier.
His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall.
Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses.
Glass possesses the property of being transparent to heat rays of small wave lengths belonging to the visible spectrum; but it is not transparent to dark heat rays, such, for instance, as are sent out by a heated furnace or by a hot lump of earth.
The heat rays of the sun now are to a large extent of the visible, bright kind.
They penetrate through the glass of the hot-house and heat the earth under the glass.
The radiation from the earth, on the other hand, is dark and cannot pass back through the glass, which thus stops any losses of heat, just as an overcoat protects the body against too strong a loss of heat by radiation.
Fourier and Pouillet now thought that the atmosphere of our earth should be endowed with properties resembling those of glass, as regards permeability of heat.
Tyndall later proved this assumption to be correct.
end quotes
So, the “greenhouse gas” theory stated in simple terms over two hundred (200) years ago, something that anyone claiming to be a “climate scientist” would know, so why all the hub-bub about it today, as if something new has just been discovered?
And here is where the BIG DISAGREEMENT between the “old” science of Arrhenius, versus the “new” science of the IPCC crowd, which blames everything on carbon dioxide, comes into the picture, to wit:
The chief invisible constitutents of the air which participate in this effect are water vapor, which is always found in a certain quantity in the air, and carbonic acid, also ozone and hydrocarbons.
These latter occur in such small quantities that no allowance has been made for them so far in the calculations.
end quotes
So, people – water vapor is a greenhouse gas and it is more powerful as a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide
Getting back to the “basic science” Arrhenius got right, we have:
Of late, however, we have been supplied with very careful observations on the permeability to heat of carbonic acid and of water vapor.
With the help of these data I have calculated that if the atmosphere were deprived of all its carbonic acid of which it contains only 0.03 per cent, by volume the temperature of the earth’s surface would fall by about 21 C.
This lowering of the temperature would diminish the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and would cause a further almost equally strong fall of temperature.
end quotes
So what are we common people seeing there besides the fact that carbon dioxide is a natural component of the earth’s atmosphere and is necessary in the atmosphere to sustain human life here on earth?
Getting back to Arrhenius and the “basic science: he got right, we have:
If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, (296 ppm) the temperature would fall by about 4 C; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8 C.
end quotes
Now, make note of the fact that in 1908, the level of carbon dioxide in the air was 296 ppm, which takes us back to Arrhenius, as follows:
On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4 C; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8 C.
end quotes
Arrhenius is talking about a doubling of the carbon dioxide in the air at his time, 296 ppm, causing that temperature rise, which rise in CO2 would be a bit less than 600 ppm, or 200 ppm more than where we are right now.
So, back to the existential question of “do we really have a “climate crisis” as the Democrats are telling us, or is that hyperbole?
Stay tuned, for more is yet to come.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-191974
Paul Plante says :
So, people, what is the “basic science” that Arrhenius got right over a hundred years ago now?
Instead of musing about it, let us go right to the source, which is “Worlds in the Making – The Evolution of the Universe” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute, Stockholm, published in 1908, where we have the beginnings of the “greenhouse gas” theory as follows:
That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier.
His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall.
Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses.
Glass possesses the property of being transparent to heat rays of small wave lengths belonging to the visible spectrum; but it is not transparent to dark heat rays, such, for instance, as are sent out by a heated furnace or by a hot lump of earth.
The heat rays of the sun now are to a large extent of the visible, bright kind.
They penetrate through the glass of the hot-house and heat the earth under the glass.
The radiation from the earth, on the other hand, is dark and cannot pass back through the glass, which thus stops any losses of heat, just as an overcoat protects the body against too strong a loss of heat by radiation.
Fourier and Pouillet now thought that the atmosphere of our earth should be endowed with properties resembling those of glass, as regards permeability of heat.
Tyndall later proved this assumption to be correct.
end quotes
So, the “greenhouse gas” theory stated in simple terms over two hundred (200) years ago, something that anyone claiming to be a “climate scientist” would know, so why all the hub-bub about it today, as if something new has just been discovered?
And here is where the BIG DISAGREEMENT between the “old” science of Arrhenius, versus the “new” science of the IPCC crowd, which blames everything on carbon dioxide, comes into the picture, to wit:
The chief invisible constitutents of the air which participate in this effect are water vapor, which is always found in a certain quantity in the air, and carbonic acid, also ozone and hydrocarbons.
These latter occur in such small quantities that no allowance has been made for them so far in the calculations.
end quotes
So, people – water vapor is a greenhouse gas and it is more powerful as a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide
Getting back to the “basic science” Arrhenius got right, we have:
Of late, however, we have been supplied with very careful observations on the permeability to heat of carbonic acid and of water vapor.
With the help of these data I have calculated that if the atmosphere were deprived of all its carbonic acid of which it contains only 0.03 per cent, by volume the temperature of the earth’s surface would fall by about 21 C.
This lowering of the temperature would diminish the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and would cause a further almost equally strong fall of temperature.
end quotes
So what are we common people seeing there besides the fact that carbon dioxide is a natural component of the earth’s atmosphere and is necessary in the atmosphere to sustain human life here on earth?
Getting back to Arrhenius and the “basic science: he got right, we have:
If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, (296 ppm) the temperature would fall by about 4 C; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8 C.
end quotes
Now, make note of the fact that in 1908, the level of carbon dioxide in the air was 296 ppm, which takes us back to Arrhenius, as follows:
On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4 C; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8 C.
end quotes
Arrhenius is talking about a doubling of the carbon dioxide in the air at his time, 296 ppm, causing that temperature rise, which rise in CO2 would be a bit less than 600 ppm, or 200 ppm more than where we are right now.
So, back to the existential question of “do we really have a “climate crisis” as the Democrats are telling us, or is that hyperbole?
Stay tuned, for more is yet to come.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-191974
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
NBC NEWS
"Climate change is causing 'eco-anxiety' ― here's what we can do"
Kim Fitzsimons
30 OCTOBER 2019
As the reality of climate change becomes clearer than ever, some experts believe that as bad as the wildfires, droughts or record-breaking storms are, it'll be the anxiety over climate change that will affect Americans even more.
Piles of reports document the gravity of this, and of what we potentially face.
Climate activists, like 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, who recently addressed the U.N.'s Climate Action Summit in New York, further emphasize the message.
"The world is waking up," she said.
"And change is coming, whether you like it or not."
As a result, according to a recent survey by Yale and George Mason universities, we're more anxious than ever when it comes to climate, with a record number of Americans now convinced that human-caused global warming is occurring.
"As the impacts grow in frequency and severity — and the long term trajectory is very clear they're going to — this personal experience with climate change is going to drive more and more Americans to say this is happening, it is human caused, and it is a serious problem," Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University, the survey's lead researcher, said.
Ease anxiety by taking action
None of this comes as a surprise to psychiatrist and climate activist Lise Van Susteren, though.
"The populace right now is really emotionally charged," she said.
"With the extreme weather events that we're experiencing, people have finally gotten it through their heads that this is real."
"Before it was an abstraction, with tree huggers talking about stuff."
"Now, Mother Nature is making her point."
Van Susteren, who is also the co-founder of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance, further believes that as bad as the storms outside are, it'll be the storms inside, and the anxiety, that will affect us even more.
"The most anxiety provoking of all is that young people are growing up in an atmosphere where they realize that an older generation, not all of us, but an older generation, is unconcerned, or not concerned enough, about their futures."
Not only is it felt that they're not doing enough, she said, they also see that protections previously put in place have been rolled back, or are about to be.
However, Van Susteren cautions against giving in to despair and doing nothing.
For one thing, she said, it'll make us feel worse.
"For example, when you tell a patient that he or she has a serious illness, you don't sugarcoat it, and the patient does feel deeply anxious."
"But you know that if you quickly pivot to, 'But here's what we can do about it,' that the anxiety is reduced."
Activism like Thunberg's is but one example of how this works, says Van Susteren, although she notes that she hasn't spoken with Greta personally.
"I can't say specifically what's right for her, but I can say that generally, a child who is climate aware and deeply, legitimately anxious, who is turning that into empowering action, is certainly doing a lot that's right."
Become an advocate
So what can we do when it comes to climate change?
Lots of things, as most of us know.
We can eat less beef, because cows generate methane; fly less often, because flying generates carbon; and walk instead of drive, to name but a few.
But these alone ― while helpful ― aren't enough, maintains Massachusetts Institute of Technology research scientist Andrew McAfee, who has just published a book on how to solve our ecological (and other) problems.
The book, "More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources ― and What Happens Next," maintains that climate change is best addressed by looking at what's already working and doing more of it.
One of the most important things we can do as individuals, McAfee said, is to advocate for smart policies and vote.
"Our leverage as voters is fantastic."
"The frustration that I have is that we're not following the playbook that we know really well for reducing air pollution."
"We need to be electing people, we need to be making our voices heard that we want that playbook followed."
Connect with others
Meanwhile, though, we can also ease our angst by connecting with like-minded others, which not only helps get things done, but also provides a sense of support.
"There are all kinds of groups and ways to get involved with other people, where you can talk about it and work on things from whatever angle you're interested in," psychiatrist Janet Lewis, also a founding member of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance, said.
These include groups from many faith traditions, from evangelical Christians to Buddhists, as well as those with different political orientations.
Getting involved with a group has other benefits, too, Lewis notes.
Although Americans are culturally more inclined toward individual action, this can be an issue when it comes to things like climate change.
Because it's so overwhelming, she said, "one naturally feels like 'it's just a drop in the bucket, whatever I do.'"
This then leads to a sense of helplessness.
However, she added, "There's also the very real power of collective agency, of collective action."
"And it's been shown that when people get involved in doing things with other people, with groups, it actually helps them to feel more effective individually too."
Still, individuals can make a difference, Van Susteren says.
"Many times, people don't recognize that the choices we make can very powerfully influence the people around us … what we do individually is a very powerful way to establish a new kind of normal."
Stay positive and focus on progress
To further help us weather this storm, we can also keep in mind that progress is possible.
In fact, McAfee notes in his book, progress is being made.
For example, we're now using less of most resources in America than we once did, polluting the air and water less, and emitting fewer greenhouse gases, he said.
And although we still "urgently need to take action" to deal with human-caused global warming, he believes there's reason for hope.
"We should have a lot of hope because greenhouse gases are a form of air pollution and we know how to reduce air pollution," he said.
"We've done it very very successfully in the past."
"So, global warming is bad, but it's not mysterious."
"If we are serious about wanting to reduce pollution, we know how to do it."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellnes ... li=BBnb7Kz
"Climate change is causing 'eco-anxiety' ― here's what we can do"
Kim Fitzsimons
30 OCTOBER 2019
As the reality of climate change becomes clearer than ever, some experts believe that as bad as the wildfires, droughts or record-breaking storms are, it'll be the anxiety over climate change that will affect Americans even more.
Piles of reports document the gravity of this, and of what we potentially face.
Climate activists, like 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, who recently addressed the U.N.'s Climate Action Summit in New York, further emphasize the message.
"The world is waking up," she said.
"And change is coming, whether you like it or not."
As a result, according to a recent survey by Yale and George Mason universities, we're more anxious than ever when it comes to climate, with a record number of Americans now convinced that human-caused global warming is occurring.
"As the impacts grow in frequency and severity — and the long term trajectory is very clear they're going to — this personal experience with climate change is going to drive more and more Americans to say this is happening, it is human caused, and it is a serious problem," Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University, the survey's lead researcher, said.
Ease anxiety by taking action
None of this comes as a surprise to psychiatrist and climate activist Lise Van Susteren, though.
"The populace right now is really emotionally charged," she said.
"With the extreme weather events that we're experiencing, people have finally gotten it through their heads that this is real."
"Before it was an abstraction, with tree huggers talking about stuff."
"Now, Mother Nature is making her point."
Van Susteren, who is also the co-founder of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance, further believes that as bad as the storms outside are, it'll be the storms inside, and the anxiety, that will affect us even more.
"The most anxiety provoking of all is that young people are growing up in an atmosphere where they realize that an older generation, not all of us, but an older generation, is unconcerned, or not concerned enough, about their futures."
Not only is it felt that they're not doing enough, she said, they also see that protections previously put in place have been rolled back, or are about to be.
However, Van Susteren cautions against giving in to despair and doing nothing.
For one thing, she said, it'll make us feel worse.
"For example, when you tell a patient that he or she has a serious illness, you don't sugarcoat it, and the patient does feel deeply anxious."
"But you know that if you quickly pivot to, 'But here's what we can do about it,' that the anxiety is reduced."
Activism like Thunberg's is but one example of how this works, says Van Susteren, although she notes that she hasn't spoken with Greta personally.
"I can't say specifically what's right for her, but I can say that generally, a child who is climate aware and deeply, legitimately anxious, who is turning that into empowering action, is certainly doing a lot that's right."
Become an advocate
So what can we do when it comes to climate change?
Lots of things, as most of us know.
We can eat less beef, because cows generate methane; fly less often, because flying generates carbon; and walk instead of drive, to name but a few.
But these alone ― while helpful ― aren't enough, maintains Massachusetts Institute of Technology research scientist Andrew McAfee, who has just published a book on how to solve our ecological (and other) problems.
The book, "More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources ― and What Happens Next," maintains that climate change is best addressed by looking at what's already working and doing more of it.
One of the most important things we can do as individuals, McAfee said, is to advocate for smart policies and vote.
"Our leverage as voters is fantastic."
"The frustration that I have is that we're not following the playbook that we know really well for reducing air pollution."
"We need to be electing people, we need to be making our voices heard that we want that playbook followed."
Connect with others
Meanwhile, though, we can also ease our angst by connecting with like-minded others, which not only helps get things done, but also provides a sense of support.
"There are all kinds of groups and ways to get involved with other people, where you can talk about it and work on things from whatever angle you're interested in," psychiatrist Janet Lewis, also a founding member of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance, said.
These include groups from many faith traditions, from evangelical Christians to Buddhists, as well as those with different political orientations.
Getting involved with a group has other benefits, too, Lewis notes.
Although Americans are culturally more inclined toward individual action, this can be an issue when it comes to things like climate change.
Because it's so overwhelming, she said, "one naturally feels like 'it's just a drop in the bucket, whatever I do.'"
This then leads to a sense of helplessness.
However, she added, "There's also the very real power of collective agency, of collective action."
"And it's been shown that when people get involved in doing things with other people, with groups, it actually helps them to feel more effective individually too."
Still, individuals can make a difference, Van Susteren says.
"Many times, people don't recognize that the choices we make can very powerfully influence the people around us … what we do individually is a very powerful way to establish a new kind of normal."
Stay positive and focus on progress
To further help us weather this storm, we can also keep in mind that progress is possible.
In fact, McAfee notes in his book, progress is being made.
For example, we're now using less of most resources in America than we once did, polluting the air and water less, and emitting fewer greenhouse gases, he said.
And although we still "urgently need to take action" to deal with human-caused global warming, he believes there's reason for hope.
"We should have a lot of hope because greenhouse gases are a form of air pollution and we know how to reduce air pollution," he said.
"We've done it very very successfully in the past."
"So, global warming is bad, but it's not mysterious."
"If we are serious about wanting to reduce pollution, we know how to do it."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellnes ... li=BBnb7Kz
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THERE IS A HUGE CLOUD OF CARBON DIOXIDE THAT FOLLOWS THIS LITTLE GIRL AROUND WITH HER MEDIA TRAIN FOLLOWING HER AS WELL AS ALL THE PEOPLE COMING TO HER RALLIES, WHICH MAKES HER A PRIME GENERATOR OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE SHE IS RAILING AGAINST ...
MARKETWATCH
"Greta Thunberg rejects climate-change prize: ‘Climate movement does not need any more awards’"
By Rachel Koning Beals
Published: Oct 30, 2019 5:00 p.m. ET
Keep your prize, says teen activist.
Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swede behind the millions-strong protests against climate-change inaction, declined an environmental prize worth $52,000 this week.
“I want to thank the Nordic Council [including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland] for this award."
"It is a huge honour."
"But the climate movement does not need any more awards,” she wrote in an Instagram post on Tuesday.
“What we need is for our politicians and the people in power (to) start to listen to the current, best available science.”
Thunberg, in California for the Youth Climate Strike in Los Angeles, also criticized Nordic countries, which “have the possibility to do the most."
"And yet our countries still basically do nothing,” she said in the post.
In September, Thunberg gave an impassioned speech before the United Nations Climate Action Summit.
“This is all wrong."
"I shouldn’t be up here, I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean,” she said then, in calling out world leaders for not moving quickly enough to combat climate change.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/greta ... latestnews
MARKETWATCH
"Greta Thunberg rejects climate-change prize: ‘Climate movement does not need any more awards’"
By Rachel Koning Beals
Published: Oct 30, 2019 5:00 p.m. ET
Keep your prize, says teen activist.
Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swede behind the millions-strong protests against climate-change inaction, declined an environmental prize worth $52,000 this week.
“I want to thank the Nordic Council [including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland] for this award."
"It is a huge honour."
"But the climate movement does not need any more awards,” she wrote in an Instagram post on Tuesday.
“What we need is for our politicians and the people in power (to) start to listen to the current, best available science.”
Thunberg, in California for the Youth Climate Strike in Los Angeles, also criticized Nordic countries, which “have the possibility to do the most."
"And yet our countries still basically do nothing,” she said in the post.
In September, Thunberg gave an impassioned speech before the United Nations Climate Action Summit.
“This is all wrong."
"I shouldn’t be up here, I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean,” she said then, in calling out world leaders for not moving quickly enough to combat climate change.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/greta ... latestnews
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 30, 2019 at 6:55 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, having established the fact that for each and every one of us, whether just a common person, or the highest-up scientist there ever was, the BASIC SCIENCE is that were it not for the fact of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere as a vital component, whether through intelligent design, or otherwise, life as we humans know it would not be possible, right across the board.
So, WHY are we being asked or told to be hysterical about the fact that our atmosphere has 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in it today when carbon dioxide in our earth’s atmosphere is essential to life as we know it, and here I am talking about such basics as food production, as we can clearly see from the BASIC SCIENCE that Arrhenius “got right” in “Worlds in the Making – The Evolution of the Universe,” published in 1908, where we have as follows:
Another process which withdraws carbonic acid from the air is the assimilation of plants.
Plants absorb carbonic acid under secretion of carbon compounds and under exhalation of oxygen.
Like the weathering, the assimilation increases with the percentage of carbonic acid.
end quotes
With respect to food production, people, give that last sentence above some thought as we go back to Arrhenius, as follows:
The Polish botanist E. Godlewski showed as early as 1872 that various plants (he studied Typha latifolia and Glyceria spectabilis with particular care) absorb from the air an amount of carbonic acid which increases proportionally with the percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere up to 1 per cent., and that the assimilation then attains, in the former plant, a maximum at 6 per cent., and in the latter plant at 9 per cent.
The assimilation afterwards diminishes if the carbonic acid percentage is further augmented.
If, therefore, the percentage of carbon dioxide be doubled, the absorption by the plants would also be doubled.
If, at the same time, the temperature rises by 4, the vitality will increase in the ratio of 1 : 1.5, so that the doubling of the carbon dioxide percentage will lead to an increase in the absorption of carbonic acid by the plant approximately in the ratio of 1 : 3.
An increase of the carbon dioxide percentage to double its amount may hence be able to raise the intensity of vegetable life and the intensity of the inorganic chemical reactions threefold.
end quotes
Note again that when Arrhenius is writing those words, he is talking about a period when atmospheric CO2 levels were roughly 290 ppm, so a doubling would take that number to 580 ppm, far above the present level of 400 ppm.
So, for poor people like myself who grow our own food, or we starve, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is actually better in terms of plant vitality and growth, which is something these “climate scientists” perched high in their ivory towers never think about.
So, again, WHY are we being asked or told to be hysterical about the fact that our atmosphere has 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in it today when carbon dioxide in our earth’s atmosphere is essential to life as we know it?
That is the essential question being raised and never answered, just avoided, in all the threads on the subject of either global warming or climate change that the Mirror has been running as a sort of on-going series to cover various aspects of what I am calling the “climate crisis scam,” which has brought us to this discussion in here, which itself is occurring on many levels as it must to be fully understood.
And it is a “climate crisis scam” because there is no evidence that the changing of the earth’s ever-changing climate is a crisis, as can be seen in this exchange between myself and the high-ranking NOAA scientist, as follows:
Q: Does the science in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?
On Monday, September 23, 2019, 7:10:37 PM EDT, Howard Diamond wrote: Frankly, I do not know.
end quotes
Nor do any of these so-called experts who would have us believing they can control nature and the earth and its climate as if it were a trained seal playing the Star-Spangled Banner on a tuned set of bicycle horns.
With respect to how much carbon dioxide should actually be in the earth’s atmosphere, we have widely varying opinions which triggered this exchange between myself as an engineer and that top NOAA climate scientist, as follows:
On 9/23/2019 3:25 PM, Paul Plante wrote:
Another point is that when an engineer doing HVAC design looks in standard references for NORMAL background air, the figure given ranges from 250 – 350 ppm, with no whiff of hysteria, whatsoever, that the world is going to come to a cataclysmic end in 10 or 12 years, as we are being told today, and in answer to the question “What is the safe top limit of the amount of co2 for Earth?”, it is in short that no one knows the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 while the generally accepted maximum safe figure is 350 PPM.
Does that agree with your science?
On Monday, September 23, 2019, 3:47:23 PM EDT, Howard Diamond wrote:
As for what a generally maximum number, yes, the generally accepted maximum safe figure has been pegged to 350 ppm.
That level was chosen for practicality as well as the fact that that level is generally pegged to result in about a 1°C increase which was considered much better than projections right now that take us well above that limit.
Yes, we are only at 0.8°C at this point, but again, from my previous information, the oceans have not quite kicked in yet.
So, is 350 ppm the best safe top limit?
Well, it’s probably as close as is practical short of going back to the pre-industrial average of 280 ppm.
end quotes
So, is there a “climate crisis,” people?
Or is it hysteria-mongering?
Consider the NBC NEWS article “Climate change is causing ‘eco-anxiety’ ― here’s what we can do” by Kim Fitzsimons on 30 October 2019, to wit:
As the reality of climate change becomes clearer than ever, some experts believe that as bad as the wildfires, droughts or record-breaking storms are, it’ll be the anxiety over climate change that will affect Americans even more.
Piles of reports document the gravity of this, and of what we potentially face.
Climate activists, like 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, who recently addressed the U.N.’s Climate Action Summit in New York, further emphasize the message.
“The world is waking up,” she said.
“And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”
As a result, according to a recent survey by Yale and George Mason universities, we’re more anxious than ever when it comes to climate, with a record number of Americans now convinced that human-caused global warming is occurring.
end quotes
“Human-caused” global warming is occurring?
Do tell.
So, if there were no humans on earth, would the earth’s climate then be unchanging?
Something to think about, anyway.
As to the supposed CO2 levels in the air, and whether or not CO2 is uniformly distributed as a gas all over the earth equally, which it is not, I posed this question on BASIC SCIENCE to the NOAA scientist, to wit:
On 9/23/19 6:03 PM, Paul Plante wrote:
It has been observed that CO2 levels wax and wane over the northern hemisphere as a function of season, with levels decreasing during the growing season, and yet, this does not seem to be considered in the “consensus” theory.
Why would that be?
end quotes
That is a question that never got answered.
And please, don’t change your dial, because this “Climate-Gate Saga” still has legs and room to run.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-192249
Paul Plante says :
So, having established the fact that for each and every one of us, whether just a common person, or the highest-up scientist there ever was, the BASIC SCIENCE is that were it not for the fact of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere as a vital component, whether through intelligent design, or otherwise, life as we humans know it would not be possible, right across the board.
So, WHY are we being asked or told to be hysterical about the fact that our atmosphere has 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in it today when carbon dioxide in our earth’s atmosphere is essential to life as we know it, and here I am talking about such basics as food production, as we can clearly see from the BASIC SCIENCE that Arrhenius “got right” in “Worlds in the Making – The Evolution of the Universe,” published in 1908, where we have as follows:
Another process which withdraws carbonic acid from the air is the assimilation of plants.
Plants absorb carbonic acid under secretion of carbon compounds and under exhalation of oxygen.
Like the weathering, the assimilation increases with the percentage of carbonic acid.
end quotes
With respect to food production, people, give that last sentence above some thought as we go back to Arrhenius, as follows:
The Polish botanist E. Godlewski showed as early as 1872 that various plants (he studied Typha latifolia and Glyceria spectabilis with particular care) absorb from the air an amount of carbonic acid which increases proportionally with the percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere up to 1 per cent., and that the assimilation then attains, in the former plant, a maximum at 6 per cent., and in the latter plant at 9 per cent.
The assimilation afterwards diminishes if the carbonic acid percentage is further augmented.
If, therefore, the percentage of carbon dioxide be doubled, the absorption by the plants would also be doubled.
If, at the same time, the temperature rises by 4, the vitality will increase in the ratio of 1 : 1.5, so that the doubling of the carbon dioxide percentage will lead to an increase in the absorption of carbonic acid by the plant approximately in the ratio of 1 : 3.
An increase of the carbon dioxide percentage to double its amount may hence be able to raise the intensity of vegetable life and the intensity of the inorganic chemical reactions threefold.
end quotes
Note again that when Arrhenius is writing those words, he is talking about a period when atmospheric CO2 levels were roughly 290 ppm, so a doubling would take that number to 580 ppm, far above the present level of 400 ppm.
So, for poor people like myself who grow our own food, or we starve, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is actually better in terms of plant vitality and growth, which is something these “climate scientists” perched high in their ivory towers never think about.
So, again, WHY are we being asked or told to be hysterical about the fact that our atmosphere has 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in it today when carbon dioxide in our earth’s atmosphere is essential to life as we know it?
That is the essential question being raised and never answered, just avoided, in all the threads on the subject of either global warming or climate change that the Mirror has been running as a sort of on-going series to cover various aspects of what I am calling the “climate crisis scam,” which has brought us to this discussion in here, which itself is occurring on many levels as it must to be fully understood.
And it is a “climate crisis scam” because there is no evidence that the changing of the earth’s ever-changing climate is a crisis, as can be seen in this exchange between myself and the high-ranking NOAA scientist, as follows:
Q: Does the science in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?
On Monday, September 23, 2019, 7:10:37 PM EDT, Howard Diamond wrote: Frankly, I do not know.
end quotes
Nor do any of these so-called experts who would have us believing they can control nature and the earth and its climate as if it were a trained seal playing the Star-Spangled Banner on a tuned set of bicycle horns.
With respect to how much carbon dioxide should actually be in the earth’s atmosphere, we have widely varying opinions which triggered this exchange between myself as an engineer and that top NOAA climate scientist, as follows:
On 9/23/2019 3:25 PM, Paul Plante wrote:
Another point is that when an engineer doing HVAC design looks in standard references for NORMAL background air, the figure given ranges from 250 – 350 ppm, with no whiff of hysteria, whatsoever, that the world is going to come to a cataclysmic end in 10 or 12 years, as we are being told today, and in answer to the question “What is the safe top limit of the amount of co2 for Earth?”, it is in short that no one knows the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 while the generally accepted maximum safe figure is 350 PPM.
Does that agree with your science?
On Monday, September 23, 2019, 3:47:23 PM EDT, Howard Diamond wrote:
As for what a generally maximum number, yes, the generally accepted maximum safe figure has been pegged to 350 ppm.
That level was chosen for practicality as well as the fact that that level is generally pegged to result in about a 1°C increase which was considered much better than projections right now that take us well above that limit.
Yes, we are only at 0.8°C at this point, but again, from my previous information, the oceans have not quite kicked in yet.
So, is 350 ppm the best safe top limit?
Well, it’s probably as close as is practical short of going back to the pre-industrial average of 280 ppm.
end quotes
So, is there a “climate crisis,” people?
Or is it hysteria-mongering?
Consider the NBC NEWS article “Climate change is causing ‘eco-anxiety’ ― here’s what we can do” by Kim Fitzsimons on 30 October 2019, to wit:
As the reality of climate change becomes clearer than ever, some experts believe that as bad as the wildfires, droughts or record-breaking storms are, it’ll be the anxiety over climate change that will affect Americans even more.
Piles of reports document the gravity of this, and of what we potentially face.
Climate activists, like 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, who recently addressed the U.N.’s Climate Action Summit in New York, further emphasize the message.
“The world is waking up,” she said.
“And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”
As a result, according to a recent survey by Yale and George Mason universities, we’re more anxious than ever when it comes to climate, with a record number of Americans now convinced that human-caused global warming is occurring.
end quotes
“Human-caused” global warming is occurring?
Do tell.
So, if there were no humans on earth, would the earth’s climate then be unchanging?
Something to think about, anyway.
As to the supposed CO2 levels in the air, and whether or not CO2 is uniformly distributed as a gas all over the earth equally, which it is not, I posed this question on BASIC SCIENCE to the NOAA scientist, to wit:
On 9/23/19 6:03 PM, Paul Plante wrote:
It has been observed that CO2 levels wax and wane over the northern hemisphere as a function of season, with levels decreasing during the growing season, and yet, this does not seem to be considered in the “consensus” theory.
Why would that be?
end quotes
That is a question that never got answered.
And please, don’t change your dial, because this “Climate-Gate Saga” still has legs and room to run.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-192249
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
The Daily Kos
"Debate is Over for Dems: Climate Crisis It Is. GOP: Crisis! What Crisis?"
xaxnar for Climate Fight Community
2019/06/28 · 13:34
In case you were wondering why Climate Change is getting the attention of Democratic candidates, and why “Climate Crisis” is finally getting some traction, the BBC’s Matt McGrath had a report from their Met Office with a grim prediction back in February that more than justifies it:
Climate change: World heading for warmest decade, says Met Office
The Met Office is forecasting that temperatures for each of the next five years are likely to be 1C or more above pre-industrial levels.
In the next five years there's also a chance we'll see a year in which the average global temperature rise could be greater than 1.5C.
That's seen as a critical threshold for climate change.
If the data matches the forecast, then the decade from 2014-2023 will be the warmest in more than 150 years of record keeping.
Here’s a graphic from NASA that shows where the heat is on.
Image showing how the earth is heating up. attribution: NASA, BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47144058
A Nasa graphic showing the global temperature anomalies between 2014 and 2018 - higher than the long term trend is shown in red
As of right now, Europe is experiencing a heat wave; record temperatures may be set in France and Germany.
France 40C heatwave could break June records
Several videos at the link show what’s happening, explain the weather pattern heating up the continent, and show people coping with the heat which is expected to persist for serveral days.
(If you are wondering, 40°C is 104°F)
Here’s some of the precautions the French are taking — and why.
From the link:
...Temporary fountains have been put in place and public pools will stay open later as part of an extreme heat plan.
...Water will also be distributed and a care plan will be put in effect for vulnerable people including the elderly, as high humidity will make 40C feel like 47C in the capital. [116F]
...Comparisons are being drawn to the heat wave France experienced in August 2003 - in which almost 15,000 people died.
In the space of a single month, the top three temperatures ever recorded were all set, topping out at 44.1C on 12 August.
...The city of Paris has activated its "level three" extreme heat plan - level four, the maximum, has never been used.
Part of that plan involves designating some 900 "cool places" that have lower temperatures than the surrounding city streets - such as parks, air-conditioned public halls, and areas where temporary fountains and mist machines have been set up.
The city is also keeping an extra 13 parks open at night for people to cool down in.
And Bingo: Mark Sumner is reporting the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe - with the US heating up too.
On Friday, France recorded the highest temperature ever experienced at any location in that country.
The 44.3° C reading (about 111° F) at the town of Carpentras is an all-time record, but it’s just part of a massive heat wave that has been baking much of Europe.
The heat wave has closed schools and businesses unequipped to deal with such temperatures.
It’s sparked record wildfires in Spain and led to water-rationing across several nations.
Europe is not the only region experiencing heat extremes.
From the New York Times as of June 13, 2019:
India Heat Wave, Soaring Up to 123 Degrees, Has Killed at Least 36
NEW DELHI — One of India’s longest and most intense heat waves in decades, with temperatures reaching 123 degrees, has claimed at least 36 lives since it began in May, and the government has warned that the suffering might continue as the arrival of monsoon rains has been delayed.
India’s heat waves have grown particularly intense in the past decade, as climate change has intensified around the world, killing thousands of people and affecting an increasing number of states.
This year, the extreme temperatures have struck large parts of northern and central India, with Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra among the worst-hit states.
The death toll is undoubtedly higher by now, and an additional problem is water supplies that are drying up.
Dramatic images from space show the changes.
Satellite footage released earlier this month shows the city’s four reservoirs, including nearby Lake Puzhal, have severely shrunk since last June.
The reservoirs have a capacity of 318.8 billion litres, but they are down to a collective 651 million litres, according to government data reported by the Hindustan Times.
The reservoirs have been reduced to 0.2 per cent of their capacity, according to state government data.
The start of monsoon season is expected to bring some relief — but an additional consequence of global warming is more intense storms.
From the NY Times:
In the western state of Gujarat, officials were bracing for extreme weather of a different sort: A major cyclone was approaching with winds over 100 miles an hour.
Flights and train journeys were canceled, and about 300,000 people were evacuated.
But early Thursday it appeared that the cyclone might skirt Gujarat.
It was the second major storm facing India this year.
In March, Cyclone Fani struck Odisha, in eastern India.
The early warning system worked remarkably well there, with the government evacuating about a million people and avoiding the widespread deaths caused by past storms.
The US is still struggling with massive flooding in the center of the country as Scientific American reports:
No End in Sight for Record Midwest Flood Crisis
High waters continue to swamp towns and agricultural fields throughout the Mississippi basin
The 2019 Mississippi River flood fight is going to slog deep into the summer — and maybe much longer.
While communities north of St. Louis are beginning the expensive path to recovery after record-breaking winter and spring precipitation and runoff, people below the Missouri River are shoveling mud from their houses and praying for a dry spell.
The Lower Mississippi Valley remains in a flood crisis as high water continues to swamp streets, homes, businesses, sewage and water treatment plants, and farm fields, including across some of the poorest counties in the United States.
Although Democrats are acknowledging the Climate Crisis, as the exchanges on the first two debates demonstrated, Charles P. Pierce looks at the Trump administration and says:
Everything Is So Insanely Dumb and It's Going to Kill Us
CNN Presents..."Ladies and gentlemen, your Secretary of Agriculture!"
Perdue told CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich in the interview released Tuesday that "we don't know" the cause of climate change, adding, "and obviously scientists -- many scientists believe that it's human caused, other scientists believe it's not," Perdue [said].
"So if it's not human caused, then what is it?" Yurkevich asked.
"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly."
"And you know, and they change, as I said."
"It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today."
"So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments," Perdue responded.
Pierce had an earlier piece that lays out just how invidious Perdue’s Department of Agriculture has become on climate issues:
On Monday, Politico brought us a report about how this mischief is crippling our response to the great existential crisis of our time, namely, by burying any mention of the effects of the climate crisis on American agriculture — or, to use its brand name, food.
The studies range from a groundbreaking discovery that rice loses vitamins in a carbon-rich environment — a potentially serious health concern for the 600 million people world-wide whose diet consists mostly of rice — to a finding that climate change could exacerbate allergy seasons to a warning to farmers about the reduction in quality of grasses important for raising cattle.
And in Oregon, Republican Senators have apparently blocked action on Climate bills by A) going into hiding to prevent a quorum for voting, and B) through threats of violence.
Rolling Stone notes the Koch brothers and other corporate interests have their fingers in the pie.
Some excerpts:
Runaway Senators, Militias and Koch Money: What the Hell Just Happened in Oregon?
...SALEM, ORE. — Massive logging trucks circled the streets around the capitol, flying American flags in their truck beds and blasting horns, as hundreds of right-wing protesters rallied in support of Oregon’s fugitive GOP senators, whose week-long walkout appears to have killed the state’s ambitious cap-and-trade climate legislation.
The rally was a show of force for rural Oregonians.
Hundreds of demonstrators, mostly white men, some in hard hats, some wearing camo and hunting orange, many sporting unruly beards, spilled out over the steps in front of the statehouse.
The plastic tanks of an irrigation truck parked out front were spray-painted with the words “NO ON HB 2020” — referring to the climate bill.
A cluster of III% militiamen gathered in black sweatshirts reading “When Tyranny Becomes Law * Rebellion Becomes Duty.”
...Before leaving Salem, one GOP state senator, Brian Boquist, responded with incendiary rhetoric.
On the floor of the chamber, he first threatened the state senate president, Peter Courtney, saying: “If you send the State Police to get me, Hell’s coming to visit you personally.”
He later menaced state troopers themselves: “Send bachelors and come heavily armed,” he said on camera.
“I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon.”
...The GOP legislators who staged the walkout are well funded by carbon polluters, including Koch Industries, which owns a Georgia Pacific timber mill that would be regulated under the bill.
According to an analysis by the Oregonian, the walkout senators are primarily funded by corporate interests:
Cover from the Supertramp album: Crisis? What Crisis? attribution:
https://www.discogs.com/Supertramp-Cris ... ase/372267
While the planet burns, some see it as a crisis.
Others see it as those dividend checks continuing to roll in.
The Climate Crisis is something that should generate a unified global response; unfortunately it is colliding with a political crisis fueled by oligarchs, authoritarians, and ideologues intent on consolidating their grip on power and wealth.
It is threatening a break down of the civil order and the rule of law on top of the stresses already coming from climate disruption.
Give Inslee credit for insisting that Climate had to be on the debate agenda; there seemed to be no disagreement that it’s important — just a difference on how the candidates would prioritize it.
Of all the candidates on the stage over the two nights, IMHO Warren is the one who seems to have connected all the dots; the Climate Crisis is the result of one thing at the core: the corruption from greed backed by wealth out of control.
Who is this economy really working for?
It’s doing great for a thinner and thinner slice at the top.
It’s doing great for giant drug companies.
It’s just not doing great for people who are trying to get a prescription filled.
It’s doing great for people who want to invest in private prisons, just not for the African Americans and Latinx whose families are torn apart, whose lives are destroyed and whose communities are ruined.
It’s doing great for giant oil companies that want to drill everywhere, just not for the rest of us who are watching climate change bear down upon us.
When you’ve got a government, when you’ve got an economy that does great for those with money and isn’t doing great for everyone else, that is corruption, pure and simple.
We need to call it out.
We need to attack it head on.
And we need to make structural change in our government, in our economy and in our country.
emphasis added
The only debate we should be having going forward on Climate is:
• What do we do about it?
• How fast should we do it?
• How the Hell we get the Republican saboteurs out of the way?
Here are my answers:
• Everything
• ASAP
• By any means necessary
Time is not on our side.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6 ... hat-Crisis
"Debate is Over for Dems: Climate Crisis It Is. GOP: Crisis! What Crisis?"
xaxnar for Climate Fight Community
2019/06/28 · 13:34
In case you were wondering why Climate Change is getting the attention of Democratic candidates, and why “Climate Crisis” is finally getting some traction, the BBC’s Matt McGrath had a report from their Met Office with a grim prediction back in February that more than justifies it:
Climate change: World heading for warmest decade, says Met Office
The Met Office is forecasting that temperatures for each of the next five years are likely to be 1C or more above pre-industrial levels.
In the next five years there's also a chance we'll see a year in which the average global temperature rise could be greater than 1.5C.
That's seen as a critical threshold for climate change.
If the data matches the forecast, then the decade from 2014-2023 will be the warmest in more than 150 years of record keeping.
Here’s a graphic from NASA that shows where the heat is on.
Image showing how the earth is heating up. attribution: NASA, BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47144058
A Nasa graphic showing the global temperature anomalies between 2014 and 2018 - higher than the long term trend is shown in red
As of right now, Europe is experiencing a heat wave; record temperatures may be set in France and Germany.
France 40C heatwave could break June records
Several videos at the link show what’s happening, explain the weather pattern heating up the continent, and show people coping with the heat which is expected to persist for serveral days.
(If you are wondering, 40°C is 104°F)
Here’s some of the precautions the French are taking — and why.
From the link:
...Temporary fountains have been put in place and public pools will stay open later as part of an extreme heat plan.
...Water will also be distributed and a care plan will be put in effect for vulnerable people including the elderly, as high humidity will make 40C feel like 47C in the capital. [116F]
...Comparisons are being drawn to the heat wave France experienced in August 2003 - in which almost 15,000 people died.
In the space of a single month, the top three temperatures ever recorded were all set, topping out at 44.1C on 12 August.
...The city of Paris has activated its "level three" extreme heat plan - level four, the maximum, has never been used.
Part of that plan involves designating some 900 "cool places" that have lower temperatures than the surrounding city streets - such as parks, air-conditioned public halls, and areas where temporary fountains and mist machines have been set up.
The city is also keeping an extra 13 parks open at night for people to cool down in.
And Bingo: Mark Sumner is reporting the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe - with the US heating up too.
On Friday, France recorded the highest temperature ever experienced at any location in that country.
The 44.3° C reading (about 111° F) at the town of Carpentras is an all-time record, but it’s just part of a massive heat wave that has been baking much of Europe.
The heat wave has closed schools and businesses unequipped to deal with such temperatures.
It’s sparked record wildfires in Spain and led to water-rationing across several nations.
Europe is not the only region experiencing heat extremes.
From the New York Times as of June 13, 2019:
India Heat Wave, Soaring Up to 123 Degrees, Has Killed at Least 36
NEW DELHI — One of India’s longest and most intense heat waves in decades, with temperatures reaching 123 degrees, has claimed at least 36 lives since it began in May, and the government has warned that the suffering might continue as the arrival of monsoon rains has been delayed.
India’s heat waves have grown particularly intense in the past decade, as climate change has intensified around the world, killing thousands of people and affecting an increasing number of states.
This year, the extreme temperatures have struck large parts of northern and central India, with Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra among the worst-hit states.
The death toll is undoubtedly higher by now, and an additional problem is water supplies that are drying up.
Dramatic images from space show the changes.
Satellite footage released earlier this month shows the city’s four reservoirs, including nearby Lake Puzhal, have severely shrunk since last June.
The reservoirs have a capacity of 318.8 billion litres, but they are down to a collective 651 million litres, according to government data reported by the Hindustan Times.
The reservoirs have been reduced to 0.2 per cent of their capacity, according to state government data.
The start of monsoon season is expected to bring some relief — but an additional consequence of global warming is more intense storms.
From the NY Times:
In the western state of Gujarat, officials were bracing for extreme weather of a different sort: A major cyclone was approaching with winds over 100 miles an hour.
Flights and train journeys were canceled, and about 300,000 people were evacuated.
But early Thursday it appeared that the cyclone might skirt Gujarat.
It was the second major storm facing India this year.
In March, Cyclone Fani struck Odisha, in eastern India.
The early warning system worked remarkably well there, with the government evacuating about a million people and avoiding the widespread deaths caused by past storms.
The US is still struggling with massive flooding in the center of the country as Scientific American reports:
No End in Sight for Record Midwest Flood Crisis
High waters continue to swamp towns and agricultural fields throughout the Mississippi basin
The 2019 Mississippi River flood fight is going to slog deep into the summer — and maybe much longer.
While communities north of St. Louis are beginning the expensive path to recovery after record-breaking winter and spring precipitation and runoff, people below the Missouri River are shoveling mud from their houses and praying for a dry spell.
The Lower Mississippi Valley remains in a flood crisis as high water continues to swamp streets, homes, businesses, sewage and water treatment plants, and farm fields, including across some of the poorest counties in the United States.
Although Democrats are acknowledging the Climate Crisis, as the exchanges on the first two debates demonstrated, Charles P. Pierce looks at the Trump administration and says:
Everything Is So Insanely Dumb and It's Going to Kill Us
CNN Presents..."Ladies and gentlemen, your Secretary of Agriculture!"
Perdue told CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich in the interview released Tuesday that "we don't know" the cause of climate change, adding, "and obviously scientists -- many scientists believe that it's human caused, other scientists believe it's not," Perdue [said].
"So if it's not human caused, then what is it?" Yurkevich asked.
"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly."
"And you know, and they change, as I said."
"It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today."
"So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments," Perdue responded.
Pierce had an earlier piece that lays out just how invidious Perdue’s Department of Agriculture has become on climate issues:
On Monday, Politico brought us a report about how this mischief is crippling our response to the great existential crisis of our time, namely, by burying any mention of the effects of the climate crisis on American agriculture — or, to use its brand name, food.
The studies range from a groundbreaking discovery that rice loses vitamins in a carbon-rich environment — a potentially serious health concern for the 600 million people world-wide whose diet consists mostly of rice — to a finding that climate change could exacerbate allergy seasons to a warning to farmers about the reduction in quality of grasses important for raising cattle.
And in Oregon, Republican Senators have apparently blocked action on Climate bills by A) going into hiding to prevent a quorum for voting, and B) through threats of violence.
Rolling Stone notes the Koch brothers and other corporate interests have their fingers in the pie.
Some excerpts:
Runaway Senators, Militias and Koch Money: What the Hell Just Happened in Oregon?
...SALEM, ORE. — Massive logging trucks circled the streets around the capitol, flying American flags in their truck beds and blasting horns, as hundreds of right-wing protesters rallied in support of Oregon’s fugitive GOP senators, whose week-long walkout appears to have killed the state’s ambitious cap-and-trade climate legislation.
The rally was a show of force for rural Oregonians.
Hundreds of demonstrators, mostly white men, some in hard hats, some wearing camo and hunting orange, many sporting unruly beards, spilled out over the steps in front of the statehouse.
The plastic tanks of an irrigation truck parked out front were spray-painted with the words “NO ON HB 2020” — referring to the climate bill.
A cluster of III% militiamen gathered in black sweatshirts reading “When Tyranny Becomes Law * Rebellion Becomes Duty.”
...Before leaving Salem, one GOP state senator, Brian Boquist, responded with incendiary rhetoric.
On the floor of the chamber, he first threatened the state senate president, Peter Courtney, saying: “If you send the State Police to get me, Hell’s coming to visit you personally.”
He later menaced state troopers themselves: “Send bachelors and come heavily armed,” he said on camera.
“I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon.”
...The GOP legislators who staged the walkout are well funded by carbon polluters, including Koch Industries, which owns a Georgia Pacific timber mill that would be regulated under the bill.
According to an analysis by the Oregonian, the walkout senators are primarily funded by corporate interests:
Cover from the Supertramp album: Crisis? What Crisis? attribution:
https://www.discogs.com/Supertramp-Cris ... ase/372267
While the planet burns, some see it as a crisis.
Others see it as those dividend checks continuing to roll in.
The Climate Crisis is something that should generate a unified global response; unfortunately it is colliding with a political crisis fueled by oligarchs, authoritarians, and ideologues intent on consolidating their grip on power and wealth.
It is threatening a break down of the civil order and the rule of law on top of the stresses already coming from climate disruption.
Give Inslee credit for insisting that Climate had to be on the debate agenda; there seemed to be no disagreement that it’s important — just a difference on how the candidates would prioritize it.
Of all the candidates on the stage over the two nights, IMHO Warren is the one who seems to have connected all the dots; the Climate Crisis is the result of one thing at the core: the corruption from greed backed by wealth out of control.
Who is this economy really working for?
It’s doing great for a thinner and thinner slice at the top.
It’s doing great for giant drug companies.
It’s just not doing great for people who are trying to get a prescription filled.
It’s doing great for people who want to invest in private prisons, just not for the African Americans and Latinx whose families are torn apart, whose lives are destroyed and whose communities are ruined.
It’s doing great for giant oil companies that want to drill everywhere, just not for the rest of us who are watching climate change bear down upon us.
When you’ve got a government, when you’ve got an economy that does great for those with money and isn’t doing great for everyone else, that is corruption, pure and simple.
We need to call it out.
We need to attack it head on.
And we need to make structural change in our government, in our economy and in our country.
emphasis added
The only debate we should be having going forward on Climate is:
• What do we do about it?
• How fast should we do it?
• How the Hell we get the Republican saboteurs out of the way?
Here are my answers:
• Everything
• ASAP
• By any means necessary
Time is not on our side.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6 ... hat-Crisis