Climate science denier appointed to top position at NOAA
“The orange clown…
“There is zero doubt that the science is, for the most part, settled….. Big oil has lobbied and inserted propaganda into social and mainstream media, for decades….
“Sweet. I invested some of my cash in solar and wind just over a month ago. It’s doing great.”
Wow, AP, you pack a lot of power statements in a small space. Hope you feel better now.
1. With the ‘orange clown’ comment you just backed half the Country who supported our president into a corner where they have to defend him. You alienated them in your second sentence.
2. With the ‘zero doubt’ argument you just shut down any counter discussion as being foolish without having to provide evidence for your side. Pretty slick.
3. If big oil has inserted propaganda into the main stream media, are you talking about the constant barrage of global warming fear mongering we hear on PBS and the TV networks? Probably not.
4. Great to hear you are making money on the stock market. Next time would you let us know about it ahead of time? We’re all friends here.
Lots of self-congratulation. As for new information, not so much.
As I recall from Debate Class, the technique of
“Proof by Repeated Assertion”
frequently works quite well, until one day it just doesn’t,
because it turns out that some premise was false or some
new fact or new factor emerges that wasn’t known before.
Either we’re interested in science, facts, and truth,
or we’re into beliefs, concerns, feelings and actions in advance
of knowledge, but having no idea or concern about consequences.
I am willing to let facts and new data change my mind.
I’d much rather have all ideas represented, and then defended,
than to have some ideas simply shut down out-of-hand, censored,
and claimed to be wrong because they’ve already been declared
wrong using “Proof by Repeated Assertion.”
So, if there’s a “Denier” on the NOAA, I say, That’s Fine.
He doesn’t really have all that much company. Not a serious threat.
Maybe that person’s presence will help find science and truth.
Isn’t that what “Integrity vs. Ideology” is all about ?
Having ‘civil’ discussions with those who express abundant disdain for anybody who follows the science, rather than the oil lobby, is rather pointless.
If you have a problem with fact, don’t respond to my posts, just carry on supporting those who have an ‘opinion.’ Hope that works for you.
Self congratulations? Hardly. Investing in sustainable energy was common sense and probably the morally responsible thing to do. That it happened to work out financially as well as it did, was a surprise to me. But it makes a certain amount of sense, judging by how markets are now moving in response to climate catastrophe.
“Nonlinear interactions between the various factors (clouds, particulates CO2, water vapor, other gases), some of which vary tremendously both horizontally and vertically, are so complex that they can only be solved with sophisticated modelling.”
Really interesting point. I tried to do a cursory search for any report on a significant study of the effect of water vapor on global warming and the only result found was:
It has an interesting comment from a Texas A&M atmospheric study that states:
Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).
Wow! So maybe the next question that would interest us would be has anyone ever measured how many Watts of energy per square meter would be trapped on the surface according to laboratory experiments with air samples containing say 380 PPM CO2 vs. 411 ppm? Lets get some numbers that will put this debate to bed.
People who hold a belief and refuse to listen to counter arguments are usually insecure in their belief. Think about this: When you are highly convinced that you know the truth regarding anything, it is often interesting and enlightening to let the countervailing view get expressed. Sometimes hearing crazy shit gives you a good laugh. You can learn by seeing the thought process of whoever disagrees with you. You are not threatened by allowing them to speak.
When debate is quelched, I have to assume that the people in power who refuse to discuss are fearful of their position being proven wrong, and loosing power.
Why is asking about the origin of Covid now taboo? If you ask any questions about the Wuhan Lab you are Classified a wet-market denier. There is no more debate. The Chinese Government has told you what the truth will be. Ask questions and you will be disappeared.
To call people “climate deniers” and refuse to hear factual argument is anti-science.
If you hold a theory, then have to courage to debate.
It would be darned near impossible to set up a laboratory experiment that would accurately model the response of the atmosphere to just a single change of CO2 concentration. That would require the control and averaging of variables that we don’t even know well enough to simulate. But there is a simple way to estimate what to expect. Since pre-industrial times the CO2 concentration has increased from about 280 ppmv to about 400 ppmv. Corresponding mean surface temperature increase has been estimated to be about 0.8 C.
As can be shown, for example, with ModTran calculations, surface temperature change is proportional to the change of the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Thus if, the entirety of the estimated 0.8 C temperature increase is due to humans increasing the CO2 concentration, we should expect 0.8 C=k log(400/280), where k is a proportionality constant equal to 5.16 using base 10 logarithms. Then, to answer your question; the temperature increase to be expected for a change from 380 to 411 ppmv would be 5.16 log(411/380)=0.176 C = 0.316 F.
More to a point of interest, if we were to double the current concentration from 411 ppmv to 822 ppmv, we might expect another 1.55 C temperature increase from present conditions. With CO2 increasing at about 5% per decade, this would take about 200 years. If someone knows better numbers, please let me know.
But it should be borne in mind that we have no way of knowing what fraction of the warming to date might be due to human activities. The IPCC estimates about half of the increase since WWII to be due to human causes. But it might also be the case that a much larger warming trend has been offset by cyclic oceanic cooling cycles that will soon shift to warming with a vengeance. Our ignorance is appalling. The way to fix that is to have honest examinations of historic geologic and climate data. Those conducted to date do not suggest any imminent catastrophes. If minor amounts of warming would be catastrophic, they should have occurred in previous warmer interglacial periods.
Its detailed enough. Take me a while to grasp the concepts. Since your understanding is in greater depth, could you help me with my 2 questions?
control and averaging of variables that we don’t even know well enough to simulate.
1. The problem with a requirement for “control and averaging of variables that we don’t even know well enough to simulate”: If we create a ‘carrier gas’ (background) for both ppm levels we select of carbon dioxide, would it be possible to create the gas from highly purified nitrogen, oxygen, noble gases, etc. and a set level of humidity and just vary the CO2 content? Then irradiate with abroad light spectrum (UV-visible-IR)and measure the watts collected on a surface. If so, you could at least calculate the energy absorbed by CO2 for later release. (Unless the effect was too small to measure.) Would this approach avoid all the estimate construct done with modeling calculations?
with ModTran calculations, surface temperature change is proportional to the change of the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
2. Are MODTRAN calculations just a modeling estimate?
agitating prop wrote:
There is zero doubt that the science is, for the most part, settled on carbon emission caused global warming. Big oil has lobbied and inserted propaganda into social and mainstream media, for decades.
I’m not quite sure how “for the most part” changes your assertion. If the science is settled, then there isn’t any reason to fund the climate scientists. (For this reason, climate scientists will disagree with you.) If the science isn’t settled, then your steadfast conclusion that carbon emission caused global warming is pretty silly. You may be aligned with the popular liberal viewpoint, but science isn’t a popularity contest. Here’s an article from June 29, 1989 that predicts disaster by 2000 if we don’t act now.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Does that sound familiar? Isn’t that the basis for AOC’s Green New Deal needing to be accepted to stop runaway climate change by 2030? Why is it always approximately a decade for disaster to strike if we don’t change our ways? How many times did Chicken Little cry that the sky was falling before others stopped listening? Hmmm.
You’ve probably heard of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That organization is the premier group trying to understand climate change and what factors determine same. They tweak their models periodically to allow for other factors. Why? Because the current models aren’t able to completely align with past climate data nor accurately predict future climate. The current model, CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6,) finally allows solar and cosmic ray influences on the earth’s climate.
Papers using the CMIP6 protocol are finding that carbon dioxide isn’t the primary driver of the 20th century’s perceived climate change. That doesn’t mean that carbon dioxide doesn’t influence climate change, just that increases in concentration at today’s level ~415 PPM aren’t the primary driver. Scientists will meet to evaluate CMIP6 and likely make adjustments for CMIP7 in 2022. If the science were settled, they wouldn’t need to make these changes.
[edit: I couldn’t get the graph to post. Open the wikipedia article linked below in a new tab and then look for the graph of 400 years of sunspot observations.]
This graph is from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle (This is noncontroversial since it is based on recorded observations; therefore, Wikipedia is as good a source as any.) You’ll hopefully notice that the sun was more active during the 20th century than at any time in the past 400 years. You should also notice that the most recent sunspot cycle, cycle 24, was the weakest in 100 years. Current projections for cycle 25 is for an equivalently weak cycle. Does that mean that the “Solar Modern Maximum” is over? Who knows? Besides, what could we do about it anyway?
I really don’t want to spend the time to cast my pearls before swine right now. I bet you’re furious that I don’t agree with your viewpoint here. You can stifle me by finding a peer reviewed paper using the CMIP6 protocols that claims that carbon dioxide concentrations is the primary driver of climate change. I’ll counter with papers that disagree and we’ll get into a pissing match. (Isn’t science wonderful?)
I’ll leave you with this 40 minute video that explains the fatal flaw in climate change science.
Except of course for the ones set by arsonists.
SALEM, Ore. — An Oregon man was charged with arson in connection to a raging wildfire that destroyed hundreds of homes, one of the blazes gripping the West Coast with death and devastation.
Michael Jarrod Bakkela, 41, was jailed on two charges of arson, 15 counts of criminal mischief and 14 counts of reckless endangering for a fire that was set Tuesday in the Phoenix area in southern Oregon.
The fire merged with the raging Almeda Fire, and there is “significant damage” that police are attributing to the fire allegedly set by Bakkela, Jackson County Sheriff’s Office public information officer Mike Moran told ABC News.
“There are numerous homes, many of which are burnt completely, some are just heavily damaged, that are part of the 15 counts of criminal mischief,” Moran said.
The climate is incredibly complex. For example, the ocean – especially the deep ocean – acts as a heat sink that delays warming for many decades. The nonlinear interactions between all parts of the system – sun, oceans, atmosphere, soil storage, plants, human impacts, other gases such as water vapor and methane are not entirely predictable.
But predictability isn’t the real issue. The real questions are “What is our best assessment of the risk of severe or catastrophic climate impacts?”, “Does this risk justify action now?”, “What are the potential costs and benefits of taking action?” and “What other risks are there going forward and how might they interact with climate risks?”