@pmconusa: we love you but for God's sake stop spewing pseudo science bullshit it's taxing and makes people not want to read your book
You may be right, a_coward but for all the wrong reasons. NYC has spent $20 billion since Hurricane Sandy . . more than any other city in the world, praise Michael . . and 'plans' to spend another 200 or so. Then mayor Bloomberg's supporters hailed him as a visionary. His critics aren't so adoring. They claim nearly every penny spent in the name of global warming/sea level rise has actually addressed long deferred, public facility upgrades and maintenance; storm water runoff being foremost among them.
And four years later, still no expensive dykes. It defies logic.
"@pmconusa: we love you but for God's sake stop spewing pseudo science bullshit it's taxing and makes people not want to read your book."
I have to say (without desiring to be mean about it) that I learned to tune him out a long time ago.
In the meantime, my question still stands--what is the "correct" temperature of the Earth?
Trump told the NY Times that he believes that there's a connection between global warming and human activity. He's also backing off his promise to withdrawn from the Paris Accord. What a huge difference there is between candidate Trump and President-elect Trump.
"Trump also shifted position on climate change, saying he believes there is “some connectivity” between human activity and rising global temperatures."
You can read more about how his positions are changing here:http://www.centralmaine.com/2016/11/22/trump-disavows-extremist-alt-righ...
He's probably chuckling to himself, "I can't believe they believed all that crap I said!"
So what are Republicans going to do now that their leader has changed his position on global warming?
If they're smart, they'll continue to oppose policies designed to kill off the fossil fuels industry and plunge us into cold, semi-darkness.
Speaking of cold, semi-darkness makes me think of VS question, In the meantime, my question still stands--what is the "correct" temperature of the Earth?
The answer is, "It depends on one's desired outcome." If you think that humans are simply despoilers of the environment, then bring on the next ice age and cover a big part of the world with ice.. That should reduce the world population considerably. Of course, the demise of millions (billions?) of people won't be pretty, but it would be effective. Significant warming would be less destructive, cause severe economic hardships, food shortages, starvation for many and relocation of populations. I guess my progeny wouldn't enjoy fishing for wild brook trout - at least in Maine. A scientist friend of mine enjoyed digging for marine fossils near my home, about 25 miles inland, so I guess it's happened before.
Interesting question, VS, and I guess the answer depends on how close to the status quo one wants to maintain. Change is inevitable but I think the slower the better so humans have time to adapt.
David Allen sez: "Trump told the NY Times that he believes that there's a connection between global warming and human activity. He's also backing off his promise to withdrawn from the Paris Accord. What a huge difference there is between candidate Trump and President-elect Trump."
However.... "The ‘fake news’ that Trump had somehow moderated or changed his “global warming” views was not supported by the full transcript of the meeting." link....http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/23/fake-news-update-media-falsely-sp...
Time for a third party? That doesn't kowtow to the criminal DC beltway Slime. Of Course this has so little to do about Climate Change, 150 years of the industrial revolution and whatever resultant co2 is going to be changed by a year or decade of carbon taxes?
Trump will just be a stepping stone in revolting against the Globalists, at the very least worth the entertainment value of watching the social justice warriors and presstitutes heads explode.
With all this melting of ice I haven't noticed the high water mark on the old Atlantic increasing more than inches at the best, I guess we wait for the big wave that wipes out the green monster. what a joke
We're doomed!!! At least those areas 10 feet or less above current sea level. A single area of Antarctic glaciers is retreating and the resulting melt water would raise ocean levels 10 feet causing huge environmental disruptions, not to mention the loss of downtown Portland.http://www.centralmaine.com/2016/11/23/antarctic-glacier-may-melt-on-its...
Here's what's so frustrating about the whole topic. The alarmists always want complete submission on the validity of the golabl warming hypothesis. This gets us exactly nowhere. Even if the hypothesis is generally correct, the IPCC concedes the unknowns about feedback loops, forcing, the oceans, and clouds are tremendous and prevent certainty about the extent of future warming and the effects thereof. Yet the alarmists insist on draconian measures that will kill off the fossil fuel industry and plunge the world into a dark, cold future, because there is no effective substitute at this time.
I say let's proceed by enacting measures that will be useful to humankind regardless of the validity of the global warming hypothesis. Desalination technology for fresh water, for example. Safe nuclear power. There are other examples at Bjorn Lomberg's website.
Pressing for acceptance of the current hypothesis as truth is more akin to science-as-religion (denier! apostate!) than science-as-discovery-of-the-knowable-universe.
Mainemom: What you have failed to grasp from we skeptics is that we believe man and his antics, whatever they might be have no impact on the big picture of the ultimate demise of life on earth due to its climate. You are right in that there are things man can and should be doing such as harnessing the rivers to provide power and more importantly irrigation to maintain our food supply. The problem with those efforts is that the politicians and their friends who give them their power won't make as much money on it. The bankers, who own most of everything including the farms and the houses we live in are not concerned about what the farmers produce or what jobs we have, if any, only the usurious payments they can collect.
Let's see. Human activity can make the rain more acidic which impacts soils and waters. Human activity can create smog and unhealthy air. Human activity can impact the ozone layer above the earth. Human activity can change the chemical composition of the atmosphere. But none of that can have any impact on the climate. Got it.
anonymous: Are you going to cite specifically where you disagree with me or are you just gong to join the crowd that resort to demeaning comments? I was beginning to believe we could engage in honest debate even to the point of agreeing to disagree. I guess I was wrong.
Mr. Allen: Before man, nature made acid rain that polluted the rivers along with dissolving surface minerals. The acid rain came from the gases generated by forest fires, naturally set by lightning and spontaneous combustion. What I have been trying to say is that man's contribution is so insignificant in comparison to nature's contribution as to be ignored. The real motive of those who want to purify the water and the air and stop the use of fossil fuels is not that really believe they are doing good but they can make money. They seem to be convincing the naïve wo can be talked in to believing anything they are told will be harmful to them personally.
pm, as I understand it, your business involved the oil industry, right?
Oh no! More science!
Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions
Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C
Comes amid mounting evidence run of record temperatures about to end
The fall, revealed by Nasa satellites, has been caused by the end of El Nino
Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record.
The news comes amid mounting evidence that the recent run of world record high temperatures is about to end . .
. . Dr Schmidt also denied that there was any ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos . .
. . However, both his own position, and his Nasa division, may be in jeopardy. US President-elect Donald Trump is an avowed climate change sceptic, who once claimed it was a hoax invented by China.
Last week, Mr Trump’s science adviser Bob Walker said he was likely to axe Nasa’s $1.9 billion (about £1.4 billion) climate research budget.
Now that's science. PE Trump threatens to axe your funding and VOILA! New science!
Follow the grant money!
I prefer going to the source, not the Daily Mail.
Especially since they use data going back centuries, not just a few years.
Mr. Allen: It certainly did and still does. It has nothing to do with how I think and what I think about. Wood was never bad, just not enough. It is reproducible unlike coal and oil and natural gas. I started out in the power industry and as you know it covers hydro, coal, oil and gas and I have been involved in projects involving all of them. I even worked on a nuclear power plant that supplemented its steam production which was wood fired. Unlike the Chinese, we continue to resort to non-reproducible fuels to sate the appetites of the growing number of people in habiting the earth and consuming 100% of its food supply. Three rivers dam produces 30,000 megawatts of energy and can still be expanded. Since not a single country is adding food capacity but reducing it just where do you think it leads? Look at Africa, the Middle East and Latin America and just see the mass of human migration that is spreading its tentacles to where there is still a surplus and a government that provides welfare to distribute it. We are a prime target. Their governments, like ours distributes nature's wealth unequally and when they can, those on the short end leave. We will have no where to go when our turn comes. Ask the homeless and the single males without work because they do not qualify for welfare, where they can go.
Like chicken little I have been crying wolf for several years since I discovered why we are headed in this direction. Its not that people don't believe my argument, they simply don't want to and either demean the messenger or ignore it because it hasn't effected them yet so they bury their heads in the sand. The problem with that attitude is that they are burying their heads between the railroad tracks and there is a train coming.
Even with increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, there has been no significant increase in global warming for the past 18 years or so. This is in spite of the fact that NASA ‘adjusted’ the past temperature records downward to create an indication of recent global temperature increase. This why those believing in global warming changed the name from global warming to climate change.
Once you understand that infrared radiation escaping the earth interacts with molecules like H20 and CO2, depositing thermal energy in the atmosphere, it follows that scientific minds would then quantify that interaction. 95% of the molecules up there are H2O.
That leaves 5% of the rest of the molecules (parts) as dry gasses; like Methane and CO2. The current concentration of CO2 is approximately 400ppm. 400 ‘parts’ per million parts of the dry gas inventory: (400/1,000,000….That would be 0.0004 or 0.04%.) That means of the 5 % of the dry gasses, 4.96% are something other than CO2.
So…..95% H2O…..plus 4.96% something other than CO2…gives us 99.96% of the global warming ‘blanket effect’ having no relationship to modern human activities that ‘generate CO2’.
That is what Dr. Terry Hughes, professor emeritus of earth sciences and climate change at the University of Maine tried to tell us when he retired.
Hughes – who worked for 35 years at the Department of Earth Sciences and the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine – said climate cycles overlap with election cycles, which helps politicians “get electoral visibility by pounding the panic drums.”
“Dr. Terry Hughes, in an interview with The College Fix, said researchers want to keep federal funding for climate change alive, and politicians want to earn environmentalist votes, and both predict global pandemonium to that end.”
You get to believe what you choose to believe. I believe global warming due to human activities that generate ‘greenhouse gases’ is a hoax.
PM- Apparently you are unaware that China is in the process of building hundreds of coal-fired plants. People like you have been crying wolf for as long as people have been around and probably will be far into the future.
NASA is corrupt.
NOAA is corrupt.
They are deplorable.
As physicist LubosMotl notes, these messages "surely show that Michael Mann is a fraudster even according to most of his colleagues."
Also for those not connecting the names, Jones is the infamous Phil Jones of UEA. Speaking of which:
I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process
UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.
... <1577> Jones:
[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data
"I have to say (without desiring to be mean about it) that I learned to tune him out a long time ago.
In the meantime, my question still stands--what is the "correct" temperature of the Earth?"
I'll take your cue on the former.
On the latter, what I would suggest is that the U.S. got to its position in the global stage with a huge industrial boost post WW2, but also because of an incredibly productive farming industry, one that depends on limited water supply in California, as well as rocky mountain melt water that feeds the breadbasket of the midwest.
Increased temperatures affect both those: in California's case, with increased drought (which we've already been seeing), and in the midwest, by changing the timing of the meltwater to be earlier.
Obviously there are caveats with this assessment (technology allows for cheaper water access; maybe food prices are too low anyway, since we have to subsidize the farming industry; etc.).
But do we really want to fuck with this?
As I've stated before, as a person living in Maine that hates the outdoors/hunting/fishing and has a pool, I'm all good with warmer temperatures. However, I worry we are starting something that would put us on a bad path.
A revenue neutral carbon tax would not increase the overall tax burden on the economy, but would simultaneously incentivize domestic wood pellet production (an industry in Maine that is hurting now because of cheap oil) as well as decrease our overall dependence on foreign oil.
"Here's what's so frustrating about the whole topic. The alarmists always want complete submission on the validity of the golabl warming hypothesis. This gets us exactly nowhere.
Pressing for acceptance of the current hypothesis as truth is more akin to science-as-religion (denier! apostate!) than science-as-discovery-of-the-knowable-universe."
It's funny, because from my point of view, I see the exact same thing from the climate deniers, except that it's "non-science-as-religion" (that is, all science is hokey, all scientists are scheming charlatans).
You are right, however, and the evidence is the revenue neutral carbon tax that was voted down in Washington. The environmentalists shot it down because it was too revenue neutral (i.e. they thought it should tax more and then the money should go to other environmental things).
Just for the record, I am *not* that extreme. I just think we should have a normal, intelligent discussion, instead of denying science on one side and insisting on overbearing, potentially economically damaging legislation on the other. But I guess I'm in the minority...
@pmconusa: I've responded to individual posts before, with no response, but here goes again:
"Viking Star: In order to keep this argument stirring you first have to understand thermodynamics and the laws that govern it. The earth is slowly getting cooler due to the pure fact the earth is warmer than the outer atmosphere so the transfer is from the hotter body to the cooler atmosphere. "
The inside of the Earth is cooling, but the rate of cooling is about 1 degree C per 10 million years, which is negligible for the purposes of climate change.
"This exchange of heat energy is slowed by the insulating factors of both the earth's crust and the gases in the atmosphere but is moderated by the release of heat through earthquakes and volcanoes as the earth shrinks due to its cooling."
1 degree C per 10 million years, it doesn't affect the surface temperature at all
" This creates cycles of indeterminate duration during which the lower atmosphere and the earth's surface experience varying degrees of apparent heating and cooling, just as it does from day to night due to the radiant heat from the sun. This has been going on for millennia, long before the appearance of man on the planet. The amount of energy being lost in this process is enormous and to think man could slow or accelerate it is akin to saying we could effect the earth's rotation if every one faced west and simultaneously farted."
If you are saying that recent heating is due to volcanic activity, then there should be a clear geographic signature, closely associated with tectonic activity, which would be the heat source.
Do you have a source that demonstrates this geographic signature in the climate data?
If we have no affect on the Earth, why have we been able to double the CO2 levels in the blink of an eye:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Regarding climate scientists wanting to make money - again, as an *actual* climate scientist that wanted to make money - there's a whole fuckton more money available by just leaving climate science and working on Wall St. or joining a Silicon Valley startup. That's what I did (both of those things, actually).
Believe me when I tell you there's no money in science. They do it because they're nerds and they like science.
This is relevant - I was going to comment on El Nino and its relevance with this year's temperature (and someone's comment about how the headline was overblown)... but my wife yelled at me to pick up the turkey and that was that.
So yes, this particular year has to be taken with a grain of salt because of El Nino (which causes the whole globe to warm), but even with the El Ninos taken out there's a clear increasing temperature trend.
Using precisely 18 years of data, you're basically cherrypicking the data (this is what Ted Cruz got dinged for).
Here is the plot of satellite data that Ted Cruz was referencing:http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
If you start your time series exactly at 1998 (the big blip) and end it now, you see no trend. But if you include the entire time series, there's a clear trend.
Also, see my earlier comments about satellite data.
Anonymous:"If we have no affect on the Earth, why have we been able to double the CO2 levels in the blink of an eye": As I have said before, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own "facts" Double what and what is the time frame of "the blink of an eye.? Both man and nature pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. We have put out most of the forest fires but replaced them with the internal combustion engine and power plants. Saudi Arabia put out most of the flares that burned gas that is now liquefied and consumed in a different fashion most of which is converted to plastics and not carbon dioxide. That carbon dioxide is necessary for all of plant life, not just trees. Individual concentrations of both oxygen, produced by plants and carbon dioxide produced by combustion, natural or otherwise concentrates at their source and are then mixed in the atmosphere by the rotational action of the earth. Man is incapable of measuring anything accurately that is in a constant state of change, particularly one as large as our atmosphere. Like the fake news that man generates by staging it the only reason one claims that man is causing global warming is that he can benefit from selected data to achieve his ends of sating his greed. I cite Al Gore as a case in point. He put forth such a story that the Nobel Committee gave him a prize for it while at the same time he has reaped a fortune convincing a large portion of the population the sky is falling.
Mr. Allen: The Chinese need the power now because of their increasing need for energy. Hydro power is far more expensive, takes land out of food production and takes longer to implement. They are only doing what we did in the 1900s to fuel our growing manufacturing industry and growing population. Our population continues to expand but the manufacturing industry has almost totally left us and we are in decline. I am crying wolf because we are falling into the same trap the countries of Africa and the Middle East, as well as those in Latin America have experienced. That is you can have your cake and eat it too so long as you continue to produce flour. The statistics from the UN Food and Agriculture organization will confirm that the production of food is dropping while the number of mouths to feed is increasing. In some countries it is below the required consumption but is being made up with raw material or industrial export revenue that enables them to buy it from countries with a surplus. In the rest in or nearing this situation you have civil war to more fairly distribute what is available or you have migration to the surplus countries that have government supplemented welfare systems. There is a way to curb this consequence but those who can do it still wish to maintain the status quo and they make the rules.