The great energy shift

The stone age did not end because we ran out of stone and the oil age will not end with the last drop of oil. Few imagined it possible even a decade ago. We have moved from managing scarcity to dealing with abundance. Fracking has given us more fossil fuel than we need. Energy efficiency has made us less energy intensive and lowered increases in demand, and development of renewables makes it almost certain that significant amounts of oil will be “stranded.” This will generally be good for the environment and the geopolitical situation but it does mean a change in behavior?

As an American and I look to the good of my country. If somebody's oil gets stranded - and it will - I prefer it to be not American. We should use American fuel first, before it loses its value.

It is like those card games where you get rid of all your high value cards before the game ends. The loser is the one who gets stuck with too many.

Don't think I am talking about the distant future. Most of us will live to see this and we will start feeling it ... now. We need to change how with think about it now.

Posted by Christine & John at August 9, 2015 4:30 PM
Comments
Comment #397249

Every time the oil debate came up, those on the left’s argument was “it will take ten years to implement the production of oil, even if we start now”. Fracking, once again places the left in the “Stone Age”. Pun intended…

But, it is about more than oil or the production of oil. I have thought of this many times; I believe the left hates this country. Obama has shown his disdain for America and everything we stand for. We are a colonialist empire that has used and abused the rest of the world and any tragedy that befalls us is of our own doing. Blocking the US from developing our own natural resources is a way of making America pay for her sins. Not only should we be blocked from producing any fossil fuels; but with the hoax of Global Warming; we should also send our tax dollars to who knows where, as further payment for our sins of colonialism.

Posted by: Blaine at August 9, 2015 5:46 PM
Comment #397250
As an American and I look to the good of my country. If somebody’s oil gets stranded - and it will - I prefer it to be not American. We should use American fuel first, before it loses its value.

It is like those card games where you get rid of all your high value cards before the game ends. The loser is the one who gets stuck with too many.

Firstly, there are environmental costs associated with hydrocarbon combustion. Costs that we should avoid if alternatives are available (and they are available).

Secondly, fossil fuels will maintain their military importance long after they have lost their economic importance. As exciting as renewable energies are, they won’t be fueling heavy military equipment in a war-zone anytime soon. In a future conflict, I hope the US has enough resources saved in her reserves in order to not impede our fighting abilities.

Blaine,
Quit being hyperbolic and come back to the real world please.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 9, 2015 7:33 PM
Comment #397251

Warren

My point is that we (the world) will be using carbon-based fuels for a limited time. We will use a similar amount no matter where they come from. They will be replaced as other technologies come on line. If we have a universe of x fossil fuel at a given price and a certain amount of this will be never used, I want the Saudis, Russians, Iranians or other non-Americans to be stuck holding that bag.

We could maintain enough reserves to take care of our military needs.

Posted by: C&J at August 9, 2015 7:45 PM
Comment #397252

“I believe the left hates this country. Obama has shown his disdain for America and everything we stand for. We are a colonialist empire that has used and abused the rest of the world and any tragedy that befalls us is of our own doing.”

Boy, there aren’t any talking points in those two sentences.

Blaine apparently has no sense of irony.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 9, 2015 7:55 PM
Comment #397254

At this point, nothing really matters until we start putting a price on GHG emissions. At that point, I would agree that all other restrictions need to be lifted.

However, as long as people like Blaine keep their heads in the sand regarding anthropogenic climate change then we aren’t going to get anywhere.

Under Obama, fracking has allowed domestic fossil fuel extraction to reach record levels. Admittedly, Obama was cautious about the unproven technology, but gave it the space to grow at reasonable pace rather than rushing into things like the GOP wanted. I think this is a legacy we can both agree is good.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 9, 2015 8:00 PM
Comment #397255

Warren

I see rapid changes. Coal is already being replaced by natural gas, which is much cleaner and has only about half the CO2 emissions. As other technologies come on line, this will change too. This is already happening. We can anticipate some breakthroughs with something like nukes.

Re Obama and fracking - the good thing is that he largely ignored it. It was already in train before he took office and he wisely did little.

We are in a much better position than anybody really anticipated even ten years ago. Fracking is the biggest reason.

Posted by: C&J at August 9, 2015 8:08 PM
Comment #397270

There are certainly many reasons to be optimistic, but I want count any chickens until the hatch. Some of my colleagues are currently researching the impact fracking on CH4 emissions. It is unknown whether the methane leaking from a fracking well is greater than the CO2 saved by burning natural gas rather than coal/oil. Hopefully, the result is that natural gas is beneficial, but I still prepare for the possibility it is not.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 10, 2015 8:07 PM
Comment #397271

C&J, Why should we believe fracking for oil is anything more than a bubble that has already started to pop? Where are we at, 70k + jobs lost this year in the oil industry because the Saudi’s dropped the price of oil. Yet you tell us fracking is the reason things are better! Seems to me this is just another one of them political ploys you use to make it appear Obama isn’t deserving of a third term. I mean jobs are being created at 200k a month and the oil fields are laying off and cutting wages.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 10, 2015 8:15 PM
Comment #397286
Blaine, Quit being hyperbolic and come back to the real world please. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 9, 2015 7:33 PM

Mr. Porter goes on to say:

However, as long as people like Blaine keep their heads in the sand regarding anthropogenic climate change then we aren’t going to get anywhere.

So my head and the heads of anyone who questions the GW myth are in the sand? First it was “we are entering another ice age”, then it was we are facing “Global Warming”, and now it is “Climate Change”. We have even had those on the left, including VP Al Gore who have called for the complete annihilation of humanity on many occasions, some of them even predicted we would already be gone. None of which has come true!

Warren, I realize you have based your complete future on the study of Climate Change; but can you give any proof of the change of the world’s climate, other than the normal weather changes, based on any proof other than computer predictions. You accuse me of having my head in the sand; yet when I watch BBC shows like “The Blue Planet”, which I love to watch, and I hear them talk about the depletion of the north and south ice packs and the extinction of the Polar bears; and then we find that these predictions made several years ago, have not happened. Who has their head in the sand? There are even some calling for the opening of Polar Bear hunting seasons because there is an abundance of the bears. I have heard the left make the claim that individual hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, or droughts do not prove GW; yet I have head the same talking heads, including Obama, use these individual events to try to prove the existence of GW. So which is it? Let me ask you flat out; do you have proof of Climate Change that is not based upon computer predictions or that is not normal climate change? If you have it, I would like to hear your proof. Climate Change is a multi-billion dollar business. In order for scientist or climatologists to get tax payer grants (millions of dollars), they must do so to prove the existence of climate change. Multi-millions of dollars are spent on movies about climate change. There is an old saying, “follow the money”. In order to understand the hoax of GW, one must follow the money. GW is a religion; a religion must have priests (the promoters of GW), and it must have worshippers (the multitudes deceived by the comments of the priests). Are there scientists who disagree with climate change? Yes, there are; but they are ostracized and mocked as being crack pots by the left. There was a time when the Catholic Church burnt people at the stake for making the comment that the earth was round and not flat. They killed people for suggesting that any truth beyond what they considered truth was heresy. Tell me, how is this any different that the closed mindedness of the left when it comes to GW? Al Gore is no scientist, he has not qualifications as a climatologists; yet his comments are considered gospel. And you say I have my head in the sand. Sorry, but I am not the Lemming running head long off the cliff. If what you claimed did not involve the stealing of billions of working peoples dollars, I wouldn’t be as suspicious; but when this great amount of transfer of wealth is involved, I have to say “follow the money”. Every law we pass, and every decision made by government is based upon an unproven theory. The EPA, a self evolving part of government, that gets bigger and bigger; has interfered in the lives private citizens and companies. They just destroyed a series of rivers in the west, and who will be held responsible? If it were the gold mine owners or employees who just dumped millions of gallons of pollution into clean rivers, what would happen to them? would they be fined or prosecuted? Why yes there lives would be destroyed; but nothing will happen to the EPA or their employees.

Posted by: Blaine at August 11, 2015 2:00 PM
Comment #397288

Blain, MMGW is a huge business with hundreds of thousands of employees and many reputations at stake.

Governments and the UN push the scientific community to make declarations based upon unreliable computer models. It is the perfect never-ending scheme to scare people and separate them from their money.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2015 2:39 PM
Comment #397293

You are correct, but it burns my hide when I hear progressives like Warren Porter use the “Dark Age” comment that if we don’t fall in lockstep and agree with the left on GW, then we must be idiots. The idiots are the ones who accept the current talking points as being the gospel truth. There are many great minds (scientists) who disagree with the current doctored numbers and computer models. But there’s no money in anti-climate change….

Posted by: Blaine at August 11, 2015 3:05 PM
Comment #397300

j2t2

Fracking puts a ceiling on oil and gas prices. We have many years worth of gas and oil at prices of $60. That means OPEC and others cannot raise prices in the long term.

Posted by: C&J at August 11, 2015 4:53 PM
Comment #397302

Not to mention, the price of cracking will go down as it is used more. Capitalism necessitates the cost to go down as profits increase.

Posted by: Blaine at August 11, 2015 5:06 PM
Comment #397303

Fracking

Posted by: Blaine at August 11, 2015 5:08 PM
Comment #397311

Blaine,

I appreciate you questions regarding global warming. Regrettably, they are nothing more than standard talking points that have been fed to you by the conservative media rather than the reasoned criticism of a genuine skeptic. Nonetheless, as a graduate student in atmospheric science, I think I am particularly qualified to answer your concerns:

So my head and the heads of anyone who questions the GW myth are in the sand?

There is ample and abundant evidence of the following:

1. The Earth is warming
2. That the warming is caused by increased concentrations of GHGs as well as associated feedback loops
3. The increase in GHGs is a result of anthropogenic emissions.

The hypothesis that CO2 impacts the Earth’s climate is an old one, dating back to the 19th century with the works of Charles Fourier, Svante Arrhenius and others. For over a century, it has been known that the earth is far warmer than it would be if it lacked an atmosphere.

First it was “we are entering another ice age”
In the 1970s, media such as Newsweek and Time magazines published stories regarding predictions of global cooling. Those stories were based upon a few scientific papers, but those papers represent a minority of the published research from that time. In the 40 years since, the number of such people predicting such an ice age has reached virtually zero.
then it was we are facing “Global Warming”, and now it is “Climate Change”
The semantic difference between “global warming” and “climate change” has its origins in attempts to underplay the significance of these risks by conservatives and others with ties to the fossil fuel economy. I don’t make too much distinction between the terms and use them both quite liberally. Granted, “climate change” is a broader term that accounts for the fact that some places might experience localized cooling as the globe warms and that there are changes in climate that have nothing to do with temperature.
We have even had those on the left, including VP Al Gore who have called for the complete annihilation of humanity on many occasions, some of them even predicted we would already be gone. None of which has come true!
Anyone predicting annihilation is being hyperbolic. Whether he be Al Gore or anyone else.
but can you give any proof of the change of the world’s climate, other than the normal weather changes, based on any proof other than computer predictions.

Reliable records of surface temperatures have been archived by several institutions including NOAA’s CDC, East Anglia University’s CRU and a team at UC Berkeley funded by Charles G. Koch and others. All three of these studies of recorded surface observations come to the same conclusion: Temperatures have risen over the past 1.5 centuries. The rise has been neither monotonic nor stead, but the trend is clear. The Earth is warmer today than it was before. Additional studies have estimated earlier temperatures through the use of various proxies (tree rings, ice cores, sedimentation layering, agriculture records and many more). These studies indicate that the recent warming began with the industrial revolution and has been without precedent during recorded history.

. You accuse me of having my head in the sand; yet when I watch BBC shows like “The Blue Planet”, which I love to watch, and I hear them talk about the depletion of the north and south ice packs and the extinction of the Polar bears; and then we find that these predictions made several years ago, have not happened. Who has their head in the sand? There are even some calling for the opening of Polar Bear hunting seasons because there is an abundance of the bears.

I am not familiar with the specific claims you make, nor am I an expert in arctic ecology or Polar Bear population dynamics. From what I know, some populations are growing and others are shrinking and the impact of climate change on Polar Bear population dynamics remains an open area of research. All I can say is that evolution has adapted the Polar Bear to living on the sea ice of the Arctic. A warmer earth will have less ice and consequently place additional strain on polar bear populations. Environmental activists have made hyperbolic claims regarding the polar bear in order to tear at the public’s heart strings. It is far easier to gain support for saving a cute bear than it is to support saving an ugly mollusk even if the latter is more vital to mankind, but I digress.

I have heard the left make the claim that individual hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, or droughts do not prove GW; yet I have head the same talking heads, including Obama, use these individual events to try to prove the existence of GW. So which is it?
Individual storms or events do not indicate climate change. Left wing activists who claim otherwise are wrong.
Let me ask you flat out; do you have proof of Climate Change that is not based upon computer predictions or that is not normal climate change? If you have it, I would like to hear your proof.
I offer a very good video put together by Peter Hadfield, who has a background in geology who later became a journalist. If you have any questions after watching his presentation, I will happily answer them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco He is admittedly a bit condescending, but he does a very good job combining what has been written in scientific literature with compelling visuals that make understanding the evidence much easier. It saves me some time from having to go through the fundamentals and would let us address any particular concerns you may have instead.
Climate Change is a multi-billion dollar business. In order for scientist or climatologists to get tax payer grants (millions of dollars), they must do so to prove the existence of climate change. Multi-millions of dollars are spent on movies about climate change. There is an old saying, “follow the money”. In order to understand the hoax of GW, one must follow the money.

Before I began my graduate program, I worked on contracts on behalf of some this nation’s largest insurance companies. I can assure you, these guys are not in the business of pissing away their money for the hell of it. I assisted with the development of proprietary computer models to help my clients understand how climate change might impact their bottom lines. Follow the money and you will discover that trillions of dollars in the global economy are at stake if global warming proceeds unmitigated.

GW is a religion; a religion must have priests (the promoters of GW), and it must have worshippers (the multitudes deceived by the comments of the priests).
An unproven assertion. Religion and science have very different epistemologies. One is concerned with faith in written words and traditions and the other is concerned with faith in the authenticity of our observations of the world around us. The former constitutes a dogma whereas the other is the foundation for the scientific method, a system responsible for all of humanities technological advances since the time of Galileo.
Are there scientists who disagree with climate change? Yes, there are; but they are ostracized and mocked as being crack pots by the left. There was a time when the Catholic Church burnt people at the stake for making the comment that the earth was round and not flat. They killed people for suggesting that any truth beyond what they considered truth was heresy. Tell me, how is this any different that the closed mindedness of the left when it comes to GW?

Yes, cry me a river for the plights of Drs. Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer and the rest. These men make up a very tiny minority of the climate science community. They also happen to be wrong. Lindzen and Spencer like to peddle a hypothesis regarding a negative feedback between cirrus cloud formation in tropical waters and rising temperatures. It is a beautiful hypothesis which would assuage all worry about global warming. It just has one little problem: it is completely wrong. The Iris hypothesis has been tested many times and the results have never supported Lindzen’s ideas. Willie Soon and others have sophisticated ideas regarding the role cosmic rays might be responsible for global warming. As with Lindzen, Soon must deal with the consequences of being wrong as observations fail to match his predictions. Also, if I recall it was revealed not too long ago that Soon was bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry and suffered disgrace for failing to disclose the possibility of a conflict of interest in the papers he submitted for publication.

None of these men and women would be mocked or dismissed as jackpots if their hypothesis actually matched our observations. Instead, they appear no different than the snake-oil salesmen peddling plans for perpetual motion machines or ideas regarding the Aether through which light travels. It is really bothersome to deal with these sorts of people because they refuse to look and evidence that unequivocally demolishes their hypothesis. Is it any wonder that GW contrarian scientists find themselves in the same company?

Al Gore is no scientist, he has not qualifications as a climatologists; yet his comments are considered gospel.
Al Gore is an idiot. There I said it. Now can you please stop bringing him up? He made a silly movie 10 years ago that brought a lot of attention to this issue, but made a bunch of sloppy mistakes. I really don’t care to defend the guy. Nobody should ever take believe what he claims without first consulting published scientific literature.
And you say I have my head in the sand. Sorry, but I am not the Lemming running head long off the cliff.
Since you began commenting here, you have done nothing but parrot the talking points of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators. It is hilarious to watch you deny the apparent. If the shoe fits…
If what you claimed did not involve the stealing of billions of working peoples dollars, I wouldn’t be as suspicious; but when this great amount of transfer of wealth is involved, I have to say “follow the money”.
I am upset that many on the Left have tried to make combating climate change into a social justice program. It is not. Poor people’s emissions should not be given a free pass. The atmosphere does not discriminate between a ton of CO2 emitted by an impoverished family and a ton of CO2 emitted by Al Gore’s Jet. The costs borne by the environment are the same.

Wealth transfer programs have benefits and its costs, but it is extremely foolish to conflate such a controversial social policy with the noncontroversial fact that unmitigated climate change will likely cost trillions in lost economic output over the remainder of the 21st century.

The EPA, a self evolving part of government, that gets bigger and bigger; has interfered in the lives private citizens and companies. They just destroyed a series of rivers in the west, and who will be held responsible? If it were the gold mine owners or employees who just dumped millions of gallons of pollution into clean rivers, what would happen to them? would they be fined or prosecuted? Why yes there lives would be destroyed; but nothing will happen to the EPA or their employees.

I am not familiar with this particular incident; however, I am aware the EPA is an imperfect institution, that I know for sure. I know from first hand experience trying to understand their air quality regulations. However, the EPA’s flaws do not diminish the importance of forbidding vandalism of public property with unregulated pollution. I welcome any reforms that can bring about positive outcomes in the realms of public health and well-being while easing the burdens of complying with regulations.

You are correct, but it burns my hide when I hear progressives like Warren Porter use the “Dark Age” comment that if we don’t fall in lockstep and agree with the left on GW, then we must be idiots. The idiots are the ones who accept the current talking points as being the gospel truth. There are many great minds (scientists) who disagree with the current doctored numbers and computer models. But there’s no money in anti-climate change….

Firstly, I am a liberal, but not a progressive. There is a significant difference between the two labels.

Secondly, healthy skepticism is a part of the scientific process. There is no expectation that people fall into lockstep agreement. Heck, there remain many vigorous debates within the climate science community as to what the impacts of AGW might be. Will Tornadoes increase in number or severity? Nobody really knows! What is the relationship between AGW and Earth’s natural oscillations (ENSO, PDO, AO, etc)? There are plenty of ideas, but nobody has incontrovertible proof.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a large population of people who reject the evidence for AGW not out of a genuine interest in discovering the truth regarding the Earth’s climate, but merely because they feel it threatens their political ideology. Part of being a scientist means dispensing with such dogmas and it saddens me that many people are unable to utilize the scientific method when they think.

Regarding those “great minds”, I addressed already the concerns of contrarians such as Drs. Lindzen, Soon and Spencer above. But I will also say that arguing from authority is no way to do science. Dr. James Watson is a “great mind” for his work determining the structure of DNA half a century ago. Today, he is a crackpot racist who claims that nonwhites and whites differ in intelligence. It would be foolish to put any stock in his ideas just because he achieved greatness a long time ago; today, his ideas stand or fall based upon evidence and observations. Watson’s ideas regarding racial differences in intelligence do not stand up to scrutiny when compared to our observations. Like with Watson, Lidnzen, Soon and Spencer’s ideas also fall flat when compared with our observations. Nobody worth his salt should follow those rascals.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 11, 2015 6:18 PM
Comment #397314

Warren: “Soon must deal with the consequences of being wrong as observations fail to match his predictions.”

Is it not true Warren that computer model predictions don’t match observations today?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2015 6:40 PM
Comment #397319
For over a century, it has been known that the earth is far warmer than it would be if it lacked an atmosphere.

If the earth lacked an atmosphere, we wouldn’t be here to worry about GW.

You love the word “hyperbolic”, you accused me of being hyperbolic, you’ve accused Al Gore of being hyperbolic, and I assume you also accuse Obama and John Kerry of being hyperbolic after their recent comments:

President Obama plans to warn graduates of the Coast Guard Academy today that their biggest fears should be about climate change, citing its specific dangers to national security.

“I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country,” Obama will say, according to advance speech excerpts published by the New York Times.

Since the midterm elections, Obama has spent more time discussing the issue, particularly in the light of national security.

In February 2015, the president argued that the media “absolutely” overstated the threat of terrorism compared to more long-term problems such as climate change.
This is also a theme driven by Secretary of State John Kerry, who frequently refers to climate change as being as great a threat as those posed by radical Islamic terrorists.

You’ve accused environmental activists of being hyperbolic, “Environmental activists have made hyperbolic claims regarding the polar bear in order to tear at the public’s heart strings”; and you’ve accused left wing activists of being wrong (hyperbolic?) “Individual storms or events do not indicate climate change. Left wing activists who claim otherwise are wrong”.

The problem with your hyperbolic comments is that most of them were made about left wing politicians, activists (lobbyist), and the president…are you getting the picture yet? The laws being passed and executive orders issued are being done by the very people you call hyperbolic.

As for your video, “Peter Hadfield, who has a background in geology who later became a journalist”, which makes him an expert in what exactly? He looks like he couldn’t find his rear end with both hands, and you want me to believe his tripe?

This is what I get from your comments; unlike myself, who has been fed a diet of conservative media and especially from Rush Limbaugh; you have been fed a diet of liberal theology from the school guaranteeing to fill little heads with mush. You claim that scientists who have been in the field much longer than you and with much more knowledge and experience than you are nothing more than crackpots. What is the basis of your conclusion? The fact that liberal scientists, whom you worship, have told you so.

I find it interesting that after all the studying you have done, that you are unfamiliar with the supposed extinction of the polar bears. I also find it interesting that you know nothing about one of the worst contaminate spills in the history of the US, that has just taken place in Colorado. Perhaps you should watch conservative media, since the liberal MSM has refused to talk about what Obama’s EPA has just done to America.

(CNSNews.com) – The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.”
But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin.

“To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.”
Although the NOAA report noted that in 2012, “the Arctic continues to warm” with “sea ice reaching record lows,” it also stated that the Antarctica sea ice “reached a record high of 7.51 million square miles” on Sept. 26, 2012.
And the latest figures for this year show that there’s been a slowdown of melting in the Arctic this summer as well, with temperatures at the North Pole well below normal for this time of year. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi calls it “the coldest ever recorded.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend

Who do we believe? it’s certainly not settled with me.

And lastly, we have this comment:

Before I began my graduate program, I worked on contracts on behalf of some this nation’s largest insurance companies. I can assure you, these guys are not in the business of pissing away their money for the hell of it. I assisted with the development of proprietary computer models to help my clients understand how climate change might impact their bottom lines.

So you used computer models to help your clients. Is this the same computer models scientists are using to fired up the hyperbolic people?

Lastly, believing the “hyperbole” of the left requires faith and not logic. When faith is involved, it becomes a religion.

I have some theories of my own about GW, but I’m sure you wouldn’t be interested. Mine make a whole lot more sense than what I have heard from your side.

Posted by: Blaine at August 11, 2015 9:09 PM
Comment #397320
Thursday, September 19, 2013

World’s ‘top’ climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years

That’s 17 years now.

New paper finds climate models have greatly exaggerated warming & finds no statistically-significant warming for past 20 years

A paper published today in Nature Climate Change finds climate models have greatly exaggerated global warming over the past 20 years, noting the observed warming is “less than half” of the modeled warming. The authors falsify the models at a confidence level of 90%, and also find that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 20 years. According to the authors, “The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models …do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years.” The paper follows another recent paper falsifying climate models at a confidence level of greater than 98% for the past 15 years.

Dr. Judith Curry comments on this paper:

In terms of reasons for model underestimation, the apparent ‘preferred’ explanation of ‘the ocean ate it’ does not get any play here, other than in context of a brief consideration of natural internal variability. Their conclusion This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal [natural] climate variability is right on the money IMO, although I don’t think their analysis of why the models might be wrong was particularly illuminating. If you would like further illumination on why the climate models might be wrong, I refer you to my uncertainty monster paper.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-climate-models-have.html

Of course these guys are crackpots too…

The problem with computer models is info in/info out. the computer model is based upon the information imputed. If the info is false, the results are false.

Posted by: Blaine at August 11, 2015 9:25 PM
Comment #397323

Until you address the evidence summarized by Peter Hadfield, you haven’t pulled your head out of the sand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 12, 2015 7:53 AM
Comment #397324

Computer Models are a tool. A tool is only as useful as the person who wields it. Every computer model is build upon the assumption that our understanding of physics and thermodynamics is reasonable. You are disputing those assumptions, which is perfectly reasonable response from a skeptic. The problem is that you have show nothing to disprove these facts:

1. CO2 and other GHGs absorb longwave terrestrial radiation but permit shortwave solar radiation to pass through unmolested.

2. About half of the radiation absorbed and re-emitted by the GHGs gets sent back to the Earth’s surface; thereby disrupting the Earth’s heat budget.

3. The additional radiative forcing warms the Earth’s surface.

4. The warmer surface temperatures initiate many feedback loops including:
a) The melting of sea ice lowers the Earth’s albedo
b) The melting of permafrost releases additional CH4 into the atmosphere
c) The warmer atmosphere allows for the evaporation of more water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas more potent than CO2
d) The warmer ocean cannot hold as much dissolved CO2 as per Henry’s law, so it releases it into the atmosphere
e) ETC

These positive feedbacks overwhelm all known negative feedbacks. This means the climate sensitivity is quite high with respect to CO2.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 12, 2015 8:28 AM
Comment #397327

I asked you to prove GW/Climate Change without computer models; you failed.

Peter Hadfield is no more qualified to speak on the subject as is Al Gore.

You failed to answer the question; are hyperbolic (you’re word, not mine) people leading the agenda on Climate Change; i.e. passing the laws?

You also failed to answer the proof that the earth’s temperature has not risen in at least 17 years.

The north and south ice packs have not decreased: but that hasn’t stopped the hyperbolic (your word, not mine) SCIENISTS at Greenpeace and NASA from declaring dire consequences at the Poles:

Ice free Arctic Bad news is coming from other sources as well. A recent NASA study has shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, it’s getting thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and 2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.

They say you can’t be too thin or too young, but this unfortunately doesn’t apply to the Arctic sea ice. Polar bears are the first to suffer from it, but many other species could be affected as well.

Action, not words
World leaders have committed to limit global temperature rise below 2 degrees at the recent G8 meeting, but have not indicated how we will achieve this. Strong emission cuts are needed if we want to prevent runaway global warming.

But then we find that Greenpeace and NASA “>lied:

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”

Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”

Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.

Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”

So we find two points made by Greenpeace and NASA, since NASA’s scientist’s models agreed with Greenpeace scientist:

1. First, it was a lie, but it is excusable because it will get the world emotionally involved in GW.

2. Secondly, it is done to curb the economic growth of America. Would it be correct to say that since Obama is also a hyperbolic promoter of impending GW disaster, that he is purposely stifling America’s economic growth because he is sold out to the GW lie?

Now here is the important point; all of this took place leading up to 2009. Which is 6 years ago. In the past 6 years the polar ice has grown and the earth’s temperature has not risen.

Posted by: Blaine at August 12, 2015 12:59 PM
Comment #397331

second link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/

Posted by: Blaine at August 12, 2015 1:02 PM
Comment #397337

Blaine,

Seems like your head is still in the sand.

You have latched onto my admission that some left wing environmental activists are hyperbolic in their claims/predictions. This does not lead to the conclusion that lawmakers or proposed bills are prefaced upon that hyperbole. Instead, they may be based upon sound science.

Peter Hadfield is no more qualified to speak on the subject as is Al Gore.

True, and the same goes for you. The difference being is that Al Gore has a proven track record of being hyperbolic and Peter Hadfield does not. Peter Hadfield does not claim to have conducted any original research. All he does is reads scientific literature and amalgamates them together in compelling video presentations. I do not understand why you are unwilling to address the evidence he shares.

You also failed to answer the proof that the earth’s temperature has not risen in at least 17 years.

I’m not one to chase after every bit of mud you through at the AGW theory. I’ve done that before on WatchBlog and the result is just a lot of exhaustion for me because I try my best to find primary sources whereas conservatives just fling random blog posts and tabloid articles. After you have addressed the fundamentals of climate, then we can discuss the observed hiatus in global warming, which is a reduction in the rate in warming, but not an actual cessation of the temperature rise.

Regarding Greenpeace: They have an agenda that I do not support. I do not trust anything they say without independent verification in another source. The fact that these activists are liars does not impugn the credibility of actual scientists conducting actual research.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 12, 2015 2:15 PM
Comment #397338
I asked you to prove GW/Climate Change without computer models; you failed.

Once again:

Based upon a simple mathematical model, we can estimate the temperature of the Earth based solely on radiation received from the sun. This is known as the black-body radiation temperature and it accurately predicts the temperature of objects that lack an atmosphere (such as the moon or Mercury). I am going to skip the actual math for the sake of time, but ask me if you dispute the result. The result is a prediction of an average temperature of about 255 Kelvin, which is 33 Kelvin less than the actual mean surface temperature (288 Kelvin). This means the atmosphere is responsible for warming the Earth enough to keep average temperatures well above the freezing point of water.

Given that the atmosphere is responsible for this warming, the next task is to identify the mechanism that allows for this to happen. The only candidate that I have heard of greenhouse effect, but quantitative treatment reveals that it fits the 33K void we must fill. The greenhouse effect operates based upon a basic application of quantum mechanics, which describes how molecules absorb and re-emit light. It turns out that some gases (notably CO2, H20 and CH4) are transparent to incoming shortwave solar radiation, but absorb outgoing longwave terrestrial radiation. This absorbed radiation heats the molecules until they re-emit the radiation in all directions. Inevitably, some of that radiation returns to the Earth’s surface and provides an additional radiative forcing beyond that provided by the sun alone.

Once the radiative forcing of GHGs is taken into account, the heating effect of the atmosphere can be explained. However, a complete understanding of climate must reckon with the fact that the atmosphere is merely one component of the coupled Earth system. Due the coupled nature of the Earth system, a perturbation in one component can impact a different component, which in tern impacts the original component. If this causes an amplification of the perturbation, it is known as a positive feedback and if it causes a dampening of the perturbation it is known as a negative feedback.

As a result of much work, scientists have quantified many different feedback and the overwhelming majority of them are positive. This means the heating impact from the increased forcing from GHGs is amplified by these feedbacks and these are the reasons behind our predictions of a globe warming by at least 2K by the middle of the century.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 12, 2015 2:48 PM
Comment #397346

Once again, you accuse me of having my head in the sand; yet by your own confessions you have agreed that the laws and executive orders regarding the implementation of GW taxes and rules come from hyperbolic and lying politicians. How can you sit there and tell me that what we are doing to curb GW is correct, when it is being implemented by liars and sensationalists.

Can you name one implemented rule (EPA) or law (Feds or UN) that has not been influenced by liars and sensationalists?

You have latched onto my admission that some left wing environmental activists are hyperbolic in their claims/predictions. This does not lead to the conclusion that lawmakers or proposed bills are prefaced upon that hyperbole. Instead, they may be based upon sound science.

The key word is “may be based”; this is a supposition on your part. For a scientist, you base your argument on “our politicians may base their laws on sound science”. It has already been seen that environmental groups, even NASA, and politicians are hyperbolic sensationalists, who promote the “sky is falling”, “the end is coming” if we don’t pass these laws.

True, and the same goes for you. The difference being is that Al Gore has a proven track record of being hyperbolic and Peter Hadfield does not. Peter Hadfield does not claim to have conducted any original research. All he does is reads scientific literature and amalgamates them together in compelling video presentations. I do not understand why you are unwilling to address the evidence he shares.

I have never claimed to be a scientist; but I do have a brain and I can research and read. You send me to the youtube link of Peter Hadfield, as if he is the beginning and end of all knowledge of GW, and now you say he does “not claim to have conducted any original research”. “All he does is read”; don’t you think anyone can do that? He has no evidence; he simply bases his conclusions on someone else’s computer models.

You say Greenpeace has an agenda; don’t you think and group that is receiving federal dollars has an agenda? Does NASA have an agenda? Can you name me one group who does not have an agenda; does NASA take federal dollars and research to see in GW is a natural historical reoccurring event? No, they don’t. The science you have is based on a forgone conclusion, and they look for evidence to prove their preconceived conclusion.

The fact that these activists are liars does not impugn the credibility of actual scientists conducting actual research.

You are quick to call the Greenpeace scientists crackpots, and you are equally quick to call any scientist who researches natural phenomena for the changes in the earth’s climate, as crackpots. You do realize there are some scientist who have degrees and have spent their lives researching; but you dismiss them as crackpots…why? Because they don’t agree with you.

Based upon a simple mathematical model, we can estimate the temperature of the Earth based solely on radiation received from the sun. This is known as the black-body radiation temperature and it accurately predicts the temperature of objects that lack an atmosphere…
Given that the atmosphere is responsible for this warming, the next task is to identify the mechanism that allows for this to happen…
This means the heating impact from the increased forcing from GHGs is amplified by these feedbacks and these are the reasons behind our predictions of a globe warming by at least 2K by the middle of the century.

So you establish a starting point and who knows if it’s correct; then using a computer model you predict what is going to happen a century from now. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds. The weather scientists can’t even correctly tell us what will happen in tomorrows weather. The same Al Roper who has predicted catastrophic disaster from climate change, can’t even get it right when he has predicted massive hurricanes (which I have heard him do).

From May of 2014, NBC headlines “American Doomsday, White House Warns Of Climate Catastrophes”

So, is this sensationalism?

Studies of the temperature anomalies during the last 27 years show a close relationship with the varying increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions and La Niñas reduce CO2 values and El Niños increase them. This close relationship strongly indicates that ocean temperatures and the solubility of CO2 in seawater control the amount of CO2 being absorbed or released by the oceans. It is therefore likely that the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is due to a natural global warming and that CO2 produced through fossil fuel combustion by humans can not disrupt this balance. An advanced statistical multiregression analysis confirms this conclusion. Therefore it is likely that there is no anthropogenic climate change on a global scale. The natural exchange of CO2 between ocean, biomass on land and the atmosphere is very large. In only four to five years all the CO2 in the atmosphere has been recycled through the oceans and the biomass system. The annual anthropogenic human production of CO2 is neutralized by nature in as little as 12 days. Recent studies of the solar forcing, changes in cosmic radiation and its role in cloud formations explain the global warming that has taken place since 1910.

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Goldberg.pdf

“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.”

See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/#sthash.vXSRScdt.dpuf

So these scientists are all crackpots…???

Posted by: Blaine at August 12, 2015 4:27 PM
Post a comment