Black Monday For The Climatistas

Article

First, an article out today in Nature Geoscience ponders the problem of why observed temperatures in the troposphere are not matching up with what the climate models have predicted. The lead author, Ben Santer, is one of the leading climatistas, so this article can’t be written off as “denier” distortions. (One of the co-authors is Michael Mann.) The complete article is behind a paywall, and while it is evident that the authors have done all the necessary contortions that essentially say “our models are just a little off” so as to convey a “nothing to see here” conclusion, the abstract can hardly be reassuring because it has to concede the problem.

In other words – it shows the dishonesty of the climate scientists – ignoring the ocean cycles that have been prominent in the temp records since the 1850’s
Or is shows the ignorance of the climate scientists – not knowing about the ocean cycles even though they have been prominent in the temp records since the 1850’s

Or it shows both the ignorance and the dishonesty

Second, one of the heroes of the climate fantasists is Stanford’s Mark Jacobson, who has been arguing for some time now that the U.S. can get to 100 percent renewable electricity (wind, solar, and hydro) by the year 2050. His work is preposterous, and as I noted here once before, Jacobson is regarded as a joke by most of his Stanford colleagues. Some of them (along with heavyweight energy academics from Berkeley, MIT, and elsewhere—there are a total of 21 authors signed on) have joined a major article out today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that thoroughly rubbishes Jacobson’s fantasies:

No big surprises there, totally unrealistic to expect to get to 100 percent renewables by 2050. Now that Trump is president, scientists are willing to speak out. About bloody time!
Generating just 20% of US electricity with wind power would require some 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, up to 18 million acres of land, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earth metals. Multiply that times global needs, and you get the picture.
Green scam...

www.lavoisier.com.au...

Thats a very interesting read, its the truth about the lies climate hoaxers have been telling the world community for decades.

There is a lot in there but its interesting how so many scientists just blatantly lie for funding and what ever other reason they have

a reply to: D8Tee

This has always been a democratic party position even before Al Gore's inconvenient truth. I have seen plenty of people debunking this based on the same points made in this article. Lots of stuff on youtube over the last few years.


I would still like to see increased enviromental protection policies.

Global Warming has become it's own religion. Just as other religions will twist facts, or totally ignore them, to suit their own beliefs, Global Warming Worshipers do the exact same thing. And just like Organized religion, Global Warming is meant to keep the powerful in power, nothing more.

The source in the OP is a biased website towards the Republican party. Not scientific in the least bit.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Global Warming has become it's own religion. Just as other religions will twist facts, or totally ignore them, to suit their own beliefs, Global Warming Worshipers do the exact same thing. And just like Organized religion, Global Warming is meant to keep the powerful in power, nothing more.

Well, specifically democrats pushing for solar and battery tech grants. They are just trying to shut out the coal, natural gas, and petro guys. Who are predominately repubs.

originally posted by: game over man
The source in the OP is a biased website towards the Republican party. Not scientific in the least bit.

The science is mentioned in the blue colored links on the page.

The kicker is that the climate change models that these lib scientists have produced don't match the actual weather outside. Don't you remember "an inconvenient truth"? We're all supposed to be dead by now. It has been shown that they adjusted the data to make a scary scenario. This article is pointing out where they fibbed on their math. Remember carbon taxes?

originally posted by: game over man
The source in the OP is a biased website towards the Republican party. Not scientific in the least bit.

Two peer reviewed papers in prestigious journals not scientific enough for ya? Not sure I can help you then.

originally posted by: game over man
The source in the OP is a biased website towards the Republican party. Not scientific in the least bit.

Is MIT scientific enough for you? The science is FAR from settled.

In classrooms and everyday conversation, explanations of global warming hinge on the greenhouse gas effect. In short, climate depends on the balance between two different kinds of radiation: The Earth absorbs incoming visible light from the sun, called “shortwave radiation,” and emits infrared light, or “longwave radiation,” into space.
Upsetting that energy balance are rising levels of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), that increasingly absorb some of the outgoing longwave radiation and trap it in the atmosphere. Energy accumulates in the climate system, and warming occurs. But in a paper out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, MIT researchers show that this canonical view of global warming is only half the story.

Missing piece of the climate puzzle.

a reply to: game over man
Here is another article, pointing out the limited effects of CO2 for warming, from way back in 2013, and largely ignored.

“On the direct impact of the CO2 concentration rise to the global warming”
Alfred Laubereau and Hristo Iglev
Published 8 November 2013 • Copyright EPLA, 2013
EPL (Europhysics Letters), Volume 104, Number 2

Paper

Abstract
The growing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is often considered as the dominant factor for the global warming during the past decades. The noted correlation, however, does not answer the question about causality. In addition, the reported temperature data do not display a simple relationship between the monotonic concentration increase from 1880 to 2010 and the non-monotonic temperature rise during the same period. We have performed new measurements for optically thick samples of CO2 and investigate its role for the greenhouse effect on the basis of these spectroscopic data. Using simplified global models the warming of the surface is computed and a relatively modest effect is found, only: from the reported CO2 concentration rise in the atmosphere from 290 to 385 ppmv in 1880 to 2010 we derive a direct temperature rise of $0.26pm0.01 text[K]$ . Including the simultaneous feedback effect of atmospheric water we still arrive at a minor CO2 contribution of less than 33% to the reported global warming of $[sim]1.2 text[K]$ . It is suggested that other factors that are known to influence the greenhouse effect, e.g. air pollution by black carbon should be considered in more detail to fully understand the global temperature change.

The first article in the OP's link has nothing to do with Global Warming.

The second article reviews a Stanford professor's idea/plan to have the US 100% powered by wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. They say his plan specifically Mark Jacobsen's, is unrealistic. That doesn't mean we should not pursue clean energy and try to protect the environment. That doesn't mean there are not other scientists with better ideas on clean energy.

It's still a 100% right wing website.They are citing scientific peer reviewed journals and twisting the conclusions around to write an anti climate change article, pro-Trump.



Pro-Nuclear website article

Sounds like the Stanford professor was attacked by pro-nuclear scientists and/or nuclear physicists for his public ideas on clean energy.

The arguing doesn't change anything with what is happening outside.

I'm not a big believer in the CO2 being such a big factor. I think that chemistry and over harvesting of forests that damages our ecosystems ability to repair itself is just as important. They have made this into a money laundering scam where money flows to scientists that back the scam. Yes, we need to cut emmissions. But we should not be giving rich people money to tell us this, there are a lot of people getting rich off of this climate change BS.

We are messing things up, climate change is real, the organizations are mostly scams though, they are more interested in helping their economies than our environment.

a reply to: D8Tee

It seems you are the one who is constantly trying to cast doubt on the valid science on human induced climate change.

The reality is we are flooding the atmosphere with CO2 as a direct result of our fossil fuel addiction. This will have consequences.

Here is a good read on the stages of denial in terms of climate change:
www.theguardian.com...

Also worth mentioning is a book called Merchants of Doubt

a reply to: game over man

The first paper discusses the failure of climate models to predict or replicate the “slowdown” in early 21st century global temperatures. How does that not have to do with AGW? The models have failed, there has been hardly any warming in 19 years.

a reply to: jrod

The reality is we are flooding the atmosphere with CO2 as a direct result of our fossil fuel addiction. This will have consequences.

That is not a proven fact. It could be that the ocean are outgassing C02 as a result of warming, there is no way to know for sure.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: D8Tee

It seems you are the one who is constantly trying to cast doubt on the valid science on human induced climate change.

The reality is we are flooding the atmosphere with CO2 as a direct result of our fossil fuel addiction. This will have consequences.

It may have some consequences, but not the consequences that have been presented in any of the research presented so far. I am all for cleaner sources of energy but not as a ploy for an energy coup.

a reply to: D8Tee

The proof is there. A plethora of evidence supports the reality of our burning fossil fuels is causing a sharp rise in CO2 levels.

There is no evidence I have seen that supports your alternative theory. All I see is you using mental gymnastics to support your agenda of denying valid science.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm not a big believer in the CO2 being such a big factor. I think that chemistry and over harvesting of forests that damages our ecosystems ability to repair itself is just as important. They have made this into a money laundering scam where money flows to scientists that back the scam. Yes, we need to cut emmissions. But we should not be giving rich people money to tell us this, there are a lot of people getting rich off of this climate change BS.

We are messing things up, climate change is real, the organizations are mostly scams though, they are more interested in helping their economies than our environment.

First off. Co2 does have a great effect on greenhouse processes, however, the original studies (the same info referenced in Al gore's movie 1000 years ago) failed to add the additional variables that the earth has to deal with high Co2. Remember the dinosaurs? They lived in a very high Co2 environment for 100's of millions of years. Spokler!! The earth never died that whole time.

a reply to: D8Tee

No it doesn't...it concludes the model simulations have inaccuracy in overestimating external forcing. External forcing are climate forcing agents outside of Earth. Source

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm not a big believer in the CO2 being such a big factor. I think that chemistry and over harvesting of forests that damages our ecosystems ability to repair itself is just as important. They have made this into a money laundering scam where money flows to scientists that back the scam. Yes, we need to cut emmissions. But we should not be giving rich people money to tell us this, there are a lot of people getting rich off of this climate change BS.

We are messing things up, climate change is real, the organizations are mostly scams though, they are more interested in helping their economies than our environment.

First off. Co2 does have a great effect on greenhouse processes, however, the original studies (the same info referenced in Al gore's movie 1000 years ago) failed to add the additional variables that the earth has to deal with high Co2. Remember the dinosaurs? They lived in a very high Co2 environment for 100's of millions of years. Spokler!! The earth never died that whole time.

Right on!

I would be more on-board with the AGW argument if the call was to "Save the Human Race" and not "Save the Planet". I truly believe there is nothing humans can do to destroy the planet. It has been thorough a LOT worse that we can even dream of doing to it, and it is still here. Will the Human Race (or other life forms)( survive? Perhaps not. But, that is a different rallying call IMO.