|
|
Suppose we give billions to the bureaucratic geniuses in Paris. Suppose they are right about how global warming works (though we know they are not). What do we get for all that money?
Combined, all plans, carried out, successful best case, at a cost of hundreds of trillions + : 0.17°C
More realistic more pessimistic case: 0.05°C
If the infra-red reroutes through the atmosphere and climate sensitivity has been overestimated by 5 – 10 fold: 0.02°C
The UN wants us to spend $89 trillion by 2030 to “green up” everything. For that we hope in theory, if we’re lucky to get a reduction of one sixth of a degree 70 years later. Rush, Rush, buy that plan today! Order two, and don’t count the dead.
The real reduction, using the best empirical data, and a corrected basic model, is more likely to be in the order of one thousandth of a degree 9 decades from now.
9.4 out of 10 based on 96 ratings […]
What hockeystick eh?
A new atlas shows droughts of the past were worse than those today — and they cannot have been caused by man-made CO2. Despite the claims of “unprecedented” droughts, the worst droughts in Europe and the US were a thousand years ago. Cook et al 2015[1] put together an old world drought atlas from tree rings data as a proxy for summer wetness and dryness across Europe. They compare the severity and timing of European droughts with the North American Drought Atlas (NADA) released in 2004. Yes, it’s a tree ring study with all the caveats about how trees are responding to several factors at once etc etc. But at least the modern era is measured with the same proxy as used in the old eras.
Something else is causing droughts, something modern models don’t include:
“megadroughts reconstructed over north-central Europe in the 11th and mid-15th centuries reinforce other evidence from North America and Asia that droughts were more severe, extensive, and prolonged over Northern Hemisphere land areas before the 20th century, with an inadequate understanding of their causes.”
The worst megadrought in the California and Nevada regions was from 832 to 1074 CE (golly, […]
…
7.6 out of 10 based on 24 ratings
This video gives me hope. Finally we are starting to see more sane commentary in western parliaments. David TC Davies MP shows how politicians can master enough of the scientific details on this debate to crush the usual bumper-sticker trite “consensus” hogwash. He talks of Roman warming, the Medieval Warm Period, the Younger Dryas, the age of the Earth. It’s high school science type level, but more than enough to expose some of the silliness. He also counters the “climate change denier” tag. He cites just enough key numbers to back up each of his points. His skill here is in prioritizing the numbers that matter. Here’s hoping a few of the silent political skeptics will feel more confident to speak out. The bullying and namecalling breaks when enough people stand up to it. That’s coming.
No one I’ve ever met has ever suggested the climate never changes…
Even the IPCC is not saying that most of the warming [since industrialisation] is caused by humans …
It is absolutely certain that the more we rely on renewable energy the more we have to pay for it. No politician from any party should be running […]
There is a mystery peak in global CO2 levels in 1990. For some reason from 1989 suddenly global carbon levels jumped higher than they normal would and by 9,000 million tonnes (that’s equivalent to 2,500 mT of carbon)*. It’s only a little blip in an upward line, but as a deviation from the long steady norm, it’s a dramatic change (see the second graph below). Within a few years the excess disappeared and the reasonably straight line increase in CO2 resumed. The sudden jump is equivalent to nearly half of our total annual human fossil fuel emissions. Nothing about this peak fits with the timing of human induced fossil fuel emissions. These were not big years in our output (indeed it coincides with the collapse of the soviet block when inefficient Russian industry was shut down) .
The mystery of the massive CO2 bubble exposes how little we know about why CO2 levels rise and fall, and whether human emissions make much difference. The world is spending $4 billion dollars a day trying to change this global CO2 level of 0.04% (400ppm) but apparently other large forces are at work pushing up CO2, and then absorbing […]
Image: NASA
In years to come it may be recognized that this blog post produced the first modeled accurate figure for climate sensitivity. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity sounds dry, but it’s the driving theme, the holy grail of climate science. The accurate figure (whatever it is) summarizes the whole entirety of carbon dioxide’s atmospheric importance. That number determines whether we are headed for a champagne picnic or a baking apocalypse.
To calculate a better estimate, David identified the flaws of the conventional basic model, and rebuilt it. The basic climate model is the top-down approach looking at inputs and outputs of the whole system. It defines the culture and textbooks of the modern global warming movement. GCMs (the big hairy coupled global models) are bottom-up approaches, doomed to failure by trying to add up every detail and ending up drowning in mile-high uncertainty bands. But the GCMs are ultimately tweaked to arrive at a similar ballpark climate sensitivity as the textbook model for the “basic physics” dictates. Hence this core model is where the debate needs to be. (Everyone knows the GCMs are broken.)
For decades the world of conventional climate research has been stuck in a groundhog day […]
The devastating result of the latest CSIRO survey: 54% of Australians don’t believe the experts at the IPCC, and are not convinced that humans are the dominant cause of climate change. Starkly, only 28% of Liberal voters agree with Malcolm Turnbull. Amazingly 40% of Labor voters and even a quarter of green voters don’t accept the IPCC litany. Presumably they think humans have some effect but are not the major cause.
More importantly, even most of those who believe are not motivated. When it comes to spending money on the environment, 80% of Australians don’t voluntarily do it and 80% don’t care enough to change their vote because of this issue. Despite all the relentless propaganda, despite all the government funded groups being in lock-step, the trends are slowly falling for believers (from 2010-2014), though not “statistically significantly”. (Though longer term studies from 1990 to now show that falling trend).
The survey: CSIRO — Australian attitudes to Climate Change, 2015 PDF
Don’t miss below how a climate science professor reveals that most of the people he knows just follow their political team’s fashions. How telling? Also below, see how the ABC spins this to meaninglessness to support the […]
Thus do the claws of centralized big-government grow. I’s a committee, then a tribunal, then one day, a court?
An actual international court would end up being corruption-in-a-can — (think FIFA but with more money). The only way any legal system can work is with one law for all. As soon as countries can have individual targets, clauses and excuses, the wheeling and dealing begins. But a climate court won’t even pretend to start with an even playing field.
The danger of a system that doesn’t have “one rule for all” is already obvious in western democracies, where legal rights are being eroded by individual licensing systems. One farmer speaks out, and is slapped with 33 conditions that other farms don’t have to meet — their cash flow is cut and they slowly bleed dry, fighting all the while, and constantly being offered the possibility of better conditions “any month now”. Other farmers become afraid to speak, lest they get targeted. The Bureaucrats divide and conquer and become Kingmakers.
Daily Mail writes on the International Tribunal of Climate Justice — Sara Malm
The United Nations may launch an International Tribunal of Climate Justice which could see states […]
How they do overplay their hand.
Is there any better proof of how fragile the facade is? The evidence for the Big Scare Campaign is so pathetically weak that it cannot cope with one weatherman who writes a critical book. They are so afraid they did not even muddy the waters — it’s obvious why he was sacked. Verdier was suspended immediately after he launched his skeptical book. Now a month later, sacked.
From France24:
“I put myself in the path of COP21, which is a bulldozer, and this is the result,” Verdier told RTL radio station in October.
Right now thousands of people in France are wondering why being a skeptical journalist (as he calls himself) is such a crime. They are also wondering how many other meteorologists are skeptical but too afraid to speak out.
One thing everyone knows for sure now is that France24 is definitely not telling them the whole story about global warming. (See Sputnik News, no paywall)
French weatherman Philippe Verdier sacked for being a climate sceptic
A French weatherman has broadcast the news of his own sacking, saying he had been fired for writing a book challenging climate change. […]
Things are hotting up. After all the hard work of the past few posts, the payoff begins. By solving the flaws inherent in the basic conventional model we solve some of its biggest missed-predictions. And the clincher for conventional models has always been the missing hot spot. Without it, over half the projected warming just vanishes. And if it is telling the tale of a negative type of feedback instead of a positive one, then all bets are off — not three degrees, not even one degree, it’s more like “half” a degree. Go panic about that.
Here David gets into the empirical data — the radiosondes, the satellites, and shows how his model fits their results, whereas the establishment models have repeatedly been forced to deny them. Twenty eight million radiosondes get the wrong results: how many ways can we adjust them? Tweak that cold bias, blend in the wind shear, change the color-scales, homogenize the heck. Smooth, sort, shovel and grind those graphs. The fingerprint of CO2 was everywhere in 2005, though gradually became the non-unique signal of any kind of warming, but it still wasn’t there. It kept being “found”, though it was never reported missing. […]
…
6.8 out of 10 based on 40 ratings
Bizarrely Russia may yet slow the trainwreck in Paris. The irony — the former communist state may be the one to thwart the ambitions of the freeloading global bureaucracy. We can’t relax though, because like the Chinese, Putin will have a price and if the equation changes so that Russia gains an advantage over the West (through generous exemptions or credits or some other trade deal) he’ll pay lip-service to the Climate extremists.
Putin calls climate change a “fraud” :
[NY Times (Reuters)] Russia’s official view appears to have changed little since 2003, when Putin told an international climate conference that warmer temperatures would mean Russians “spend less on fur coats” while “agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that”.
The president believes that “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries including Russia,” says Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst and critic of Putin. “That is why this subject is not topical for the majority of the Russian mass media and society in general.”
Putin’s scepticism dates from the early 2000s, when his […]
…
It used to be that scientists were supposed to publish their methods, discuss their reasoning, and point out the weaknesses of their work. Now, it’s confidential.
The House Science Committee in the US is demanding with a subpoena that NOAA release internal communications related to the Karl et al study (that tried to remove the “pause” in global temperatures.) NOAA is refusing saying:
“It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”
Yes. It’s been longstanding since morning tea on Tuesday.
The new post-modern science conversation:
SCIENTIST 1: So why did Karl et al adjust the ocean buoy readings by a figure that is so uncertain as to be meaningless? From Kennedy et al 0.12 ± 1.7°C. What were you thinking?
KARL ET AL and co: snip [That’s confidential. Stop this now. We’re feeling harrassed!]
What is the world coming to if congress succeeds in exposing objective, rational discussion about thermometers?
h/t Leigh, Marvin
9.5 out of 10 based on 135 ratings
In typical style I looked at this draft and told David that the second half of his post should be at the top (that’s where he discusses how his model solves so many problems). He replied that the equations were the most important part, and he wasn’t going to flip them around. So, for readers who don’t speak mathematica-lingua, all I can say, is don’t miss the second half below.
Also in typical style, David prefers this picture he’s just drawn in his diagramming software, to my cartoon in the intro to post 11:
In this post, David combines the two smaller models to make one basic climate model (that’s the sum-of-warmings and the OLR models). Unlike the mainstream conventional basic model that underlies the entire establishment culture and philosophy, the alternative model uses more empirical data (and from the real world too, not just the lab). It’s also less reliant on hypothetical partial derivatives. Plus, in the alternate model, different forcings can cause different responses. In the conventional model, the architecture assumes the climate responds to to all forcings the same way.
CO2 has a warming effect on the atmosphere, rather than just on the surface, […]
August 31, 201. This coronal mass ejection just missed Earth, according to NASA
There were two mysterious sudden spikes in carbon 14 in tree rings around a thousand years ago. Now some researchers at Lund University say they’ve matched those to beryllium layers in ice cores from the Arctic and Antarctic. Some wild event made these changes across continents all over the world at the same time, and about the only thing that could have done that was a massive solar storm (or two). There are estimates these extreme storms would have been ten times stronger than the biggest solar storms we have had in the last few decades. The two big bad storms are described as a few times bigger than even the largest solar storm in modern history, which was The Carrington Event in 1859. The radioactive spikes specifically show up in tree rings in 774/775AD and 993/994AD. It’s pretty cool that we can pin those years down so accurately, and as an aside, I imagine it makes a fairly handy calibration point for tree ring researchers now that we know it was global.
Unfortunately, if one of those happened now, it would not be fun. The […]
One hundred thousand years too late, the AAP warns parents that climate change can affect their children:
Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a policy statement that links climate change with the health of children, urging pediatricians and politicians to work together to solve this crisis and protect children from climate-related threats including natural disasters, heat stress, lower air quality, increased infections, and threats to food and water supplies.
“Every child need a safe and healthy environment and climate change is a rising public health threat to all children in this country and around the world,” said AAP President Sandra G. Hassink, MD, FAAP. “Pediatricians have a unique and powerful voice in this conversation due to their knowledge of child health and disease and their role in ensuring the health of current and future children.”
This is the climate change that children without cars and electricity dealt with:
Vostok
This is the climate change babies who are 30 and under have to deal with:
UAH satellite data — the same range as the Vostok graph axis.
All those parents leaving their children out in floods and storms, be warned:
The hard sciences are less and less fooled by the charade of sciencey fear mongering (unlike some psychologists). It is great to see scientific groups speaking out, though we know this PDF, which was first published on the 24th of August 2015, will be ignored by the ABC, BBC, and CBC science propaganda teams. Not the right message.
The Société de Calcul Mathématique SA, in France has issued a long in depth white paper on climate change:
“The battle against global warming: an absurd,costly and pointless crusade”
“The battle against global warming“ 195 page PDF
The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious.
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed‘
“Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as an aid to decision-making until they have been validated.” […]
…
6.7 out of 10 based on 28 ratings
OLR — outgoing longwave radiation — is so key, so central to the climate debate that if we had top notch data on the radiation coming off the planet, we would have solved the effect of extra CO2 a long time ago. That we don’t have a specific satellite monitoring these changes in detail is like the dog that didn’t bark. Apparently a specialist OLR satellite was to be launched in 2015. More info on the RAVAN Satellite here (was supposed to launch in Sept 2015). (UPDATE: Planned for 2016) h/t siliggy.
There are four main pipes to space, and in David’s work each pipe is considered separately. The conventional model assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 constricts the CO2 pipe, which warms the surface, causing more evaporation, which then constricts the Water Vapor pipe (this is the “water vapor amplification”, even more constriction of radiation to space by water vapor that forces the surface to emit more by being yet warmer). But the missing hot spot tells us that this theory is wrong. In this OLR model, the water vapor pipe could either expand or constrict. An expansion means a drop in the height of the emissions layer, […]
…
…
h/t Alistair.
8.6 out of 10 based on 65 ratings
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
Recent Comments