And decreasing accuracy... Right. The hysterical anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda depends on ignoring the basic physics and contriving wildly implausible overestimates of positive feedbacks with no credible basis in empirical fact. False. There is no reasonable doubt that it warmed in the 1910-1940 period and again in the late 20th century, coinciding with the highest sustained level of solar activity in several thousand years. There is significant doubt that it is still warming. But a much clearer trail of evidence that it isn't.
{Date of article Nov. 25, 2019} Motivated and fear-mongered by climate "scientists" some environmental journalists have said , , , "The collapse of civilization may have already begun" , , , , " Billions will die" "Environmental journalists and advocates have in recent weeks made a number of apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change. Bill McKibben suggested climate-driven fires in Australia had made koalas “functionally extinct.” Extinction Rebellion said “Billions will die” and “Life on Earth is dying.” Vice claimed the “collapse of civilization may have already begun.” End quote Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong (forbes.com) JAG `
I am beyond disgusted at how the Left has allowed itself to be led by the nose into anti-fossil-fuel hysteria. IMO it is a deliberate distraction, a ploy to stop progressives from thinking about actual problems and their actual solutions. You'll notice how the wealthy, privileged elites are pushing anti-fossil-fuel measures as part of their Great Reset. Maybe because expensive energy is a good way to keep poor people poor...?
Yeah. How about John Kerry? I heard John Kerry is Biden's pick for Climate Czar. So? So check out the CARBON FOOTPRINT of Democrat John Kerry --- Biden's Climate Czar , , , , Start quote: -- Former Secretary of State John Kerry has come under fire for his apparently luxurious lifestyle of yachts and using a private plane, which some have argued is hypocritical for a public official advancing climate reforms. The criticism surfaced after President-elect Joe Biden nominated Kerry to serve as his climate change envoy or "climate czar," as it's been referred to in the media. During his 2004 presidential run, Kerry's campaign made 60 payments to his wife's charter jet company, totaling $273,171, the New York Post reported. Besides previously owning a 76-foot sailing yacht and using his wife's private jet – dubbed "Flying Squirrel" – Kerry repeatedly reported nine figures in assets in his wife's charter company. As late as 2013, his executive branch personnel financial disclosure shows him owning "over $1,000,001" in assets for "Flying Squirrel LLC" through his wife." End quote. Climate czar pick John Kerry racked up massive carbon footprint through yacht, private jet | Daily Angle | dailyangle.com Hypocrite. The widespread bold proud hypocrisy of the Liberal Left is HUGE-ENORMOIUS. JAG PS Not to mention Kerry's many private residences and their huge carbon footprint. `` ``
There is no evidence of this constraining climatology related sciences in any way. You can claim mechanisms like thist, but then you have to show it is happening. Let's remember that climatology is a major field of endeavor involving all reasonably technically advanced nations and covering just about every field of science. The idea that there can be a conspiracy that constrains the answers in the hundreds of dimensions being studied from upper atmosphere chemistry, measurements of temperature from space to ocean depths, sea rise, changes in local climates, agriculture, storms, physics, etc., etc., etc. and have these fields run in lock step because of some desire to produce one "right" answer is just plain NUTS. The conspiracy would have to be IMPOSSIBLY broad, deep and distributed across the planet. Beyond that, it's just not how money for science is allocsted. For just one of many aspects, there isn't any way to fund studies based on what the outcome will be. The outcome comes AFTER the funding. Another is that scientists really want to know the answer. In another field, physics, the study of particle physics at the world's most advanced collider, CERN, verified current understanding of physics. Among scientists that was received with UNIVERSAL disappointment. Scientists WANT to find ways in which current understanding doesn't work. Finding confirmation is NOT rewarding. Rewards and renown go to those who find the right answers and who show that current models are broken. We know of Einstein, because he trashed so much of the physics of his day - NOT because he was one more confirmation of existing theory. We know of Darwin for the same reason. The list goes on and on. Those who confirm are not those rewarded. There are no Nobel prizes for confirmation of existing theory.
Iowa went to wind as its single most producer of electricity because of CAPITALISM. As for jobs, more people work in clean energy in America than the entire coal industry. And, our clean energy industry pales against that of China - who is working with other countries needing power to grow China's clean energy dominance. Household production of electricity with solar pannels pays off homeowners TODAY, with there being companies that will provide solar technology and install for FREE if you will share in the profit with them. And, that can be made far more lucrative for individul Americans and American businesses if we work to fix our electricity distribution systems - which already need serious work for preventing brownouts, defending from foreign attack, etc. Thunberg is not a policy maker in America. Howevver, she absolutely does have points that are recognized around the world - NOT just in some segment of American politics. There are feedback loops that make warming speed up. The result is that when we don't slow warming it becomes harder and harder to slow. As ice coverage melts it changes the reflectivity of Earth. As tunder melts it rots and/or burns, emitting greenhouse gasses that are far worse than CO2. As oceans warm they become less capable of absorbing additional heat. There are possibilities of ocean current changes, which means heat MIGHT end up being distributed differently. (For example, if the Atlantic current slows or changes it could mean that tropical heat is no longer transported to our northeastern states, leaving the US and Europe far colder than they are today. That doesn't make Earth colder, it just means that the greater New England area would be colder while leaving hotter equatorial waters generating stronger storms.) We have no way to counter changes such as that. BUT, the bottom line is that there are proven ECOONOMIC benefits for indiiduals AND our economy in clean energy. Today in America our demand for electricity is growing. And as gas makes up for the decline of coal, clean energy growth is GREATER than the total increased demand we see each year.
Don't look now, but that means coal is cheaper and more efficient. China's use of coal continues to grow explosively. Where it's reliably sunny. "Recognized," but factually incorrect. The only significant one is the ice-albedo feedback. We can't affect the sun, sorry. Then why were previous interglacials warmer than it is now, and nothing bad happened? But more seawater evaporates, creating clouds that cool the earth. Negative feedback. Or to cause them. It's out of our hands, sorry. Watch, "Planet of the Humans" and learn the truth about your "clean" energy.
It's science in the sense that it doesn't look much like public policy, religion, engineering, But, that is not the measure. The problem is that the pieces you choose haven't gone through the process of science that includes review and publication. These are key steps that ensure that technical evaluation of both methodology and results are legitimate. So, you publish something from a guy chosen by Trump for his opposition to the conclusions of climatology, and who then blogs something that has not undergone technical review so that we can know what strengths and weaknesses are found. That's not how science works - here in America or around the world.
No, the issue here is capitalism. In Iowa, wind is the "fuel" for creation of electricity, and that didn't happen because it was more expensive or less efficient or whatever. It happened, because it is an economic direction. It happened, because of capitalism. Since 2010 coal has contributed a decreasing percent of China's total electrical energy supply. I don't know of any place in America where there is a noticable population and not enough sun for cost effective solar for home and business use. So, if you think that exists, then CITE something. There are on-line checking tools so you can figure out what might make economic sense for you. And, there are companies who will provide the technology and labor for free if you will contract to share the cost benefit with them. Solar technology has improved dramatically over the last decade.
Ah. So you reply to a substantive argument with a procedural, not to say presentational, complaint. Sorry, but that's not how science works. Science will not be bound by small-minded procedure and format quibbles or self-protective guild hall constraints.
This is pure nonsense. What you have presented is absolutely NOT how science works. Review, duplication, etc., are absolutely required. Without those, all of science becomes random and unrelated opinions of individuals. In other words, it becomes politics, NOT science.
Nope, it's science. The politics is in your attempt to suppress it. The paper is now out there. If there are objections we'll hear about them. If there's agreement we'll hear that too. It's the marketplace of ideas. And hall monitors don't rule the world. W. A. van Wijngaarden1 and W. Happer2 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada, wlaser@yorku.ca 2Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA, happer@Princeton.edu
What publication reviewed and published the paper you reference? Without review leading to publication in a credible journal it can not be considered credible. Review is a seriour requirement that science can not do without. Without serious review, any study is ONLY an idea - NOT work that can be take to have the value of those ideas that have survived being pounded on by the scientific community. This is a FUNDAMENTAL element of how scince is done on Earth today.
Nonsense. Quibbling about format instead of thinking about the science. Neither professor needs the approval of others to be credible. And journals have a sad history of suppressing climate science dissent. Suppression drives dissidents to seek alternative outlets, always and everywhere.
No it isn't. No, it happened because of enormous subsidies: https://www.masterresource.org/production-tax-credit-ptc/iowa-wind-subsidies/ But only because oil and gas are growing even faster. Because you don't understand how the economic feasibility of solar power is dominated by subsidies, not technology. I.e., the subsidy. But is still far from economically competitive with fossil fuels without the subsidies to the former and taxes on the latter. Sure, eventually solar will be cheaper than fossil fuels, and then fossil fuels will be obsolete except for niche uses. But that time is not yet. I repeat: watch "Planet of the Humans" and learn at least a little bit about your "clean" energy.
You are picking this contrarian piece instead of the combined expertise of scientists of all nations without so much as suggesting it should be reviewed - like ALL other scientists get their work revied. You can not do that and claim that you give a crap abou science. What you are proooseing IS poitics - the politics of choosing what you want to here and excludig even any process of verification.
Wow - more screeds!! Yes, equipment that corporations build DOES get amortized!!! Were you actually unaware of that?
Anyone who followed Climategate knows those who undermine science are on the orthodox alarmist side. Now that this paper is public, there's no doubt critics will go over it thoroughly. As for "combined expertise" I would remind you (bolding mine): By Michael Crichton Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003 ". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . " Aliens Cause Global Warming Thursday, January 31st, 2019
Michael Mann rebutted (again): Rebuttal of recent Mann paper: Multidecadal and Interdecadal climate oscillations: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence [link] "The present paper contributes a critical commentary on the recent finding by Mann, M. E., Steinman, B. A. and Miller, S. K (2020). Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–9. Climate oscillations are recurring large-scale fluctuations in the surface temperatures of the oceans in connection with the atmosphere. This commentary focuses on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, interdecadal timescale) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO, multidecadal timescale), which have been regarded as intrinsic climate drivers on the adjacent continents in numerous studies based on observations and paleoclimate reconstructions (Henley, 2017; O’Reilly et al., 2017). In a recent paper, Michael E. Mann and colleagues (Mann et al., 2020, hereafter M20) fail to find a PDO signal in global measured and modeled temperatures that is statistically different from noise. They further propose that the significant AMO-like signal is mainly due to anthropogenic aerosols in the 20th century, and to statistical artifacts before. Therefore they doubt the intrinsic nature of the two oscillations. The present paper shows that M20’s results are largely artifacts themselves with issues ranging from using inadequate data and referencing improper literature on anthropogenic aerosols with regards to the AMO to inappropriately interpreting the results with regards to the PDO. . . . "
That prove you objectively wrong. OK, so you are unaware of the difference between a deductible expense and a tax credit. No surprises there.
