One of NASA’s most high-profile projects has been to track historical average global temperature. In January 2016, the agency released data that showed 2015 had been the hottest year on record. “Today’s announcement not only underscores how critical NASA’s Earth observation program is, it is a key data point that should make policy makers stand up and take notice — now is the time to act on climate,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden in a statement at the time. Since then, NASA’s monthly updates on temperature delivered a steady dose of dread as month after month was declared the hottest recorded.
Now Donald Trump’s first NASA transition team pick is Christopher Shank, a Hill staffer who has said he is unconvinced of a reality that is accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists: that humans are the primary driver of climate change. Shank previously worked for Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican congressman who played a key role in dragging out debates on the basic nature of climate change at a time when the science is settled and action is urgent.
Shank has criticized the type of scientific data NASA regularly releases. As part of a panel in September 2015 at Arizona State University’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, he said, “The rhetoric that’s coming out, the hottest year in history, actually is not backed up by the science — or that the droughts, the fires, the hurricanes, etc., are caused by climate change, but it’s just weather.”
He shrugged off the severity of the climate crisis, criticizing “the rhetoric about, let’s call this climate pollution, which is CO2, which I’m emitting here today.” And he mockingly asked: “is this really about some neo-Malthusian discussion about population control that we’re talking about here?” That was a reference to Thomas Malthus, the late 18th century thinker who predicted a resource crisis if population growth continued unchecked. “What are we trying to solve here?” he asked.
Shank’s appointment dovetails with threats from Trump’s advisors to scrap NASA’s research on climate change. In an October op-ed for Space News, Trump campaign advisors Robert Walker and Peter Navarro stated, “NASA should be focused primarily on deep space activities rather than Earth-centric work that is better handled by other agencies.”
Walker told The Guardian last week, “I believe that climate research is necessary, but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”
David Titley, director of the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Penn State, wrote in response, “We can measure the Earth as an entire system only from space.”
NASA works with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to measure climate changes. NASA’s role includes developing observational technologies.
“If they really shut down the satellites, we’d be driving in the dark, in the fog, with no headlights, on a mountain road,” Titley said in an interview. Analyzing the satellite data reveals inconvenient truths, he said. “What they will find is the vast scientific consensus is correct. The earth is warming. We know why it’s warming. And it will continue to warm as we add greenhouse gases into the system.”
“Even in the post-truth world, shouting and screaming in all caps at 3 in the morning is not going to change the physics,” he said.
Shank’s longtime boss Smith, the Republican head of the House Science, Space, and Technology committee, led an effort to slash NASA’s earth science budget this year and in 2011 requested an investigation into the “politicization of NASA.”
Smith is obsessed with combatting what he has called “climate religion.” Among other things, Smith has accused scientists with NOAA of altering peer-reviewed data that challenged a key argument of climate deniers, the notion that the global temperature rises have stalled.
Shank was Smith’s deputy chief of staff from 2011 to 2013, before becoming a senior staffer for the House science committee, which Smith has led since 2012. Before the House, Shank worked at NASA between 2005 and 2009, serving in various roles, including as chief of strategic communications. He did not respond to a request for comment.
At the September 2015 panel, Shank went on to question humans’ role in climate change, repeatedly recommending that attendees read the work of Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Jr., and Roger Pielke Sr. “I find them to be the best source of commentary on climate issues and what to do about it,” he said. At one point he repeated Curry’s blog URL twice, for emphasis.
Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado, has testified before Smith’s committee arguing, “There exists exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.”
Titley chaired a committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine that issued a report last March on the science of attributing weather events to climate. The study indicated scientists now have a strong understanding of how climate impacts extreme heat and cold events and a moderate understanding of how it impacts drought and heavy rain. “When I listen to people like Pielke talk about how we can’t show tornadoes have increased, it doesn’t negate fact that seas are rising, temperatures are rising, the magnitude and severity of droughts are increasing, as well as impacting our food and our water systems,” Titley said.
The other scientist Shank mentioned, Curry, is a professor at Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and is notorious for her view that humans may not be the primary driver of climate change. In a recent blog post, she zeroed in on NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies as the agency’s hub of what she called “politicized climate science.”
Curry noted that NASA has given her more research funding than any other agency. She advocated for continuing support for NASA earth science projects, but added, “This is a welcome opportunity to redirect NASA Earth Science research towards other topics that are not directly related to or motivated by human caused climate change.”
Update: December 2, 2016
This story has been updated to clarify that Shank was talking about Roger Pielke Junior and Senior.
Top photo: The view of sea ice floats near the coast of West Antarctica from a window of a NASA Operation IceBridge airplane. Researchers have used the IceBridge data to observe that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may be in a state of irreversible decline directly contributing to rising sea levels.
The science is never “settled”, if it is true science and not dogma. Consensus may drive research and study, but it is only so long as there are scientists who do NOT subscribe to consensus thinking, that knowledge moves forward. Todays’ climate hysteria is much more like a religion, than any sincere scientific effort. Politics drives the agenda and pseudo scientists mold the models to suit the desired outcomes. Naked political power through global taxation of all C02 emissions, even cow farts and human breath if we’re to be honest here, is the goal. No one with eyes to see and ears to hear believes any of the hyped up pablum being regurgitated over and over again by those with a monied interest. Furthermore, the last agents of change for the betterment and salvation of mankind that I would ever trust as far as I could spit, would be those in government.
“Settled” does not mean “perfect certainty”; anything that has settled can be stirred up again, under the right circumstances. When those of us in the scientific community say that the question of climate change has been settled, we mean that the only detractors who remain possess no good reason to be nay-sayers.
Many people are unable to evaluate evidence properly. Without the ability to analyze claims systematically, a person is left in the wilderness without a map or compass. Left with little more than intuition, a person will likely follow an appealing path, rather than a logical one.
The evidence in favor of human-driven climate change is overwhelming. The analyses of the evidence are powerful and robust. We have every good reason to act swiftly if we want to minimize the damage and suffering brought about by the pollutants our own societies have released.
Earth is Flat.
The “Globe” model hasn’t been around for that long. Perception is a trick of the eye.
-The Nasa Cables-
Earth is Flat.
Nasa will lie to you about the origins of the globe model. It isn’t that old.
-The Nasa Cables-
This human imposed climate change is all about money! Who can squeeze the most out of the brainwashed idiots who would believe such nonsense. The Religion of Human Created Climate Change is just that a religion. I am no Trump supporter but if he wakes the world up to the lies and falsehoods of Climate Change then it is good he is in the position of power.
What a fascinating theory you have Greg. Could you please provide evidence that the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists is a religion? Where are you getting the data for your assertions. I have to admit I’ve never seen scientific research being directly conflated with religious fervour. Have you ever actually worked in the scientific field?
Earth is Flat.
The “Globe” model hasn’t been around for that long. Perception is a trick of the eye.
-The Nasa Cables-
It’s amazing how many climate-denying trolls commented on this article. Some of them are surely paid by the fossil fuel industry. Sorry folks, but most readers on this site are too well-read and intelligent to fall for your bullshit.
I find it deeply depressing, personally. It’s like your house is on fire and all these people are saying it’s not happening even as they die of smoke inhalation.
This probably won’t make any difference. Most of the climate hawks merely cry about global warming and scream that the government should wave a magic wand and fix it. The best they offer is replacing fossil fuel-sourced electricity with solar and wind, which also require some fossil fuels and mining.
Real solutions to climate change are GREATLY lowering the following: 1) human population; 2) use of electricity; 3) driving; and 4) meat consumption. Those are the main causes of climate change. Of course we should also use the least harmful technology possible, like putting solar panels on every roof, but that’s tinkering around the edges compared to dealing with the main causes.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step in fixing it, but it’s only the first step. Other than a few radical environmentalists — usually biology or ecology trained people and the best groups like Center for Biological Diversity — I haven’t heard anyone call for doing what it will take to reverse human-caused climate change. Acknowledging the problem without actually doing anything substantial about it will just mean that we will know why the Earth is burning as we watch it burn.
Something every human can willingly choose to do: not have kids. How many folks who believe it’s in their power to reverse the damage caused by industrialization though, are doing that?
How much resource would be saved by not having kids: no washing/drying clothes, ‘constantly’ running water, turning lights on/off, heat/air, gas to soccer games… soccer games and game fields themselves are a detriment.
But again, and I pointed this out re natl sec below in a thread w/ 24b4jeff, kids are also a national security concern, they are a resource or commodity for military use. Nations (look at Russia, they’re still trying to recover from male/female balance) will want to control the population in a way, at least, to maintain their military.
Nations need men and women to ‘fall in love’ and do the irrational deed.
Governments won’t do for climate changers and they won’t do for climate deniers; governments will do what they need to preserve themselves. No?
Science Friday had a very interesting segment on this topic the other day: http://www.sciencefriday.com/person/eugene-gu/ . It includes a chilling account by a scientist on the receiving end of one of these witch-hunts.
Great link!Yes, yhe constant threat of looking over your shoulder is not good for scientists.
Did laugh at the comment about believing in an allpowerfulgod who would not allow this, when Genesis speaks of responsible stewardship towards the earth!
Also did laugh at the oncreasing skills in creatingnew words: as if ceating new words create a new reality! That is a copy of Scientific Nomenclature!
The quick shutdown for these people– you love the new science in dentistry!
The author contradicts herself in her own article. Ms.A. Brown is a journalist and researcher. On matters of science I do not value her words very highly. But when she disparages world class experts, like Dr. Curry and Dr. Pielke Jr. she defines herself, not their expertise. Both have written on the foul soup of politics and climate science. (Pielke wrote on the politicization of climate science and the persecution he endured for his study finding that no ” strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change.” For this he was hounded by the media, fellow scientists, politicians and ideologues. He names names. See http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518 ) then I conclude Ms. Brown is simply a troll.
Mr. Sanders is not a scientist although he has background in NASA. His job is to devise a funding plan for scientific work. He knows Ms. Brown’s thoughts; he knows Dr. Pielke’s thoughts. All of us know the differences in climate science policy approaches between Hillary and Trump. Ms. Brown’s problem is that she can not accept that Trump will be our President. It is a personal problem but of no interest to me.
I empathize with Dr. Titley who will probably lose his funding. There are many people in Pennsylvania with no job. Dr. Titley believes the water level is rising. So we must drain the swamp of politicized science. Some fat alligators die when this occurs.
Uh, Pielke is not a scientist. He has a PHD in political science, which is not science. Also, his claims have been pretty much entirely discredited by the actual scientific community.
“Shouting and screaming in all caps at three in the morning won’t change the physics…”
Must be talking about Al Gore and all the other frauds who would rather censor, threaten, cajole, and yell down anyone who disagrees.
Were it not for the tyrannical manner of forcing a conclusion without solid evidence, and the massive tax hike that will only benefit the politically corrupt, we might be able to have a discussion.
But the Climate Change Cabal has prevented any serious debate or discourse.
What a bunch of moral degenerates.
Yes, asking for evidence of people’s assertions is “shouting down”. It’s quite fascinating, from a cognitive science perspective, to see how people rationalise their persecution complexes.
I’m glad Trump is booting out the science deniers and their
feedback loop religion.
Alleen – thanks for this very important article.
Yes, if these satellites are shut down, it’d absolutely be like driving without lights in a foggy night on the edge of a cliff…a cliff will likely soon fall off!!
The world needs to at spend far more, not less, on funding for climate research. We need our universities coming together NOW as ONE in a new era of global collaboration. That would be one way on how we can strategically move humanity through this next era of accelerated climate change.
A few questions & suggestions
1) Should we adjust Methane’s Global Warming Potential time span horizon down to 10 years, or maybe even 5?
UN only shows 20, 100 & 200 years.
http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3825.php
Great article below that critically examines GHG assumptions.
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
2) Theoretically, if humans downsized their livestock emission level in half or more within the next year, how much help could this potentially reduce the rise in short-term temperatures rates? A little or a lot? Is it worth trying?
It seems to me that a ‘diet shift’ could be the surest & quickest way to slow down the rise of temperatures, if it’s not too late already. I’m not a climate scientist though, so I’m not trying to push out expert advice, but I would love to hear from a panel of experts on their estimations on how this could impact our temperatures.
A year ago I watched Cowspiracy & made it my 2016 New Years Resolution to eat meat only once a weak (about ~80% less meat than before). I’ve nearly completed my year on point & it wasn’t as hard as I thought it would be. I really think we could get fellow millennials & youth hooked on a new diet.
Also, Senator Corey Booker is a vegetarian. It’d be nice to get him on an interview on how his diet is helping to fight climate change. He’s muscular too, so he can combat that mindset that if we eat less meat, we’ll be weak.
3) Instead of shutting down the satellites, can we shift/sell them to the United Nations, with all nations & donations helping to pay for their maintenance?
Maybe put up Leonardo DiCaprio & Elon Musk on a new UN Climate Council along with a host of international scientist/engineer leaders as well to put shift us in a different direction in a new org. Even more important than UN Security Council, we need a UN Climate Council with power & talent that can rock a new diet with less livestock! Angelina Jolie & Emma Thompson could also serve up star power for women too, especially for mommies.
4) Can The Intercept start reporting about geoengineering, like Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), especially over coral as well as permafrost areas that we believe will release lots of methane when thawed?
I know there is a group of scientists working in Silicon Valley on MCB. It’d be nice to know how much progress they’ve made as well as other groups who are trying out such innovations. It’d be awfully great to get international public more informed on MCB & geoengineering in general, especially in the global university community.
I just watched ‘Before the Flood’ with NatGeo & DiCaprio and my favorite part of the movie was when they were showing all the different satellite data on one map. To think that this would be shut down would be a huge fall for humanity & one giant step downwards.
I realize this comment might seem a bit over-the-top, but over the last five years Earth has been on a tear of a temperature increase. I’m scared that we’re within five years of a runaway methane release from thawing permafrost. Waiting on Trump & Co. to combat climate once we’ve gone off the cliff doesn’t seem like such a great strategy.
Even scarier is the thought that the new administration could order the destruction of all the climate related computer programs and historical data.
Good point. Apparently there is now a mad rush to copy the climate data onto public spreadsheets so that if he does delete the data, we – the global public – have a copy. These scientists are awesome!
“The efforts include a “guerrilla archiving” event in Toronto, where experts will copy irreplaceable public data, meetings at the University of Pennsylvania focused on how to download as much federal data as possible in the coming weeks, and a collaboration of scientists and database experts who are compiling an online site to harbor scientific information .”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.d44cd9c34a2a
Actually we could put up a Native American along with Susan Sarandon on Climate Council & keep Angelina with Refugees. Rafael Correa will have free time on his hands too once he finishes his term. He’d be great addition from Latin America on the UN.
Big environmental win in North Dakota today! Shailene Woodley & Mark Ruffalo also deserve mad respect!! Who knows, maybe this is the start to a new era inspired by Native Americans.
Hasta La Victoria Siempre
Yes, to honor this we should use a NA word.
My quick search in Cherokee/English = TSI-LU-GA/kill.
WhiteDove List of Cherokee/English Words.
DO-HI-YI = peace.
Oh dear. They’ve succeeded in finding another Dumb Person who can’t look ahead 7 days, much less 7 generations.
Yes, None of these anti-Science axxholes have ever been to Disneyland with their kids and tried tomexplain the smog!
They are looking at 7 paydays and 7 bribes– that is paying off.
ACDDeniers died in 2015, the few still around are the REAL WalkingDead Zombies– youall donot have to screenwathc– you can actually “reach out and touch someone” Zombie!
a climate denier? oh well. It will be mostly those wealthy persons beach front properties that will be “under water” in the US. I used to be concerned about this issue but i have basically given up arguing to the dumb&dumbers club. When the world changes for the worst, the defeateds like myself will be in charge and then our laws will put all the dumb&dumbers behind bars in colonies where they will grow our food for 25c a day like they treat us now.
we will get the last laff on that one.
Always look forward to your common sense posts. Good visual! Remember the old “You cant fool Mother Nature commercial”?
Wow, never ceases to amaze me how little critical thinking is utilized in these comment sections. That post lacked common sense and yet you praise him? The scientific approach being used by climatologists is nothing short of pathetic and is so politicized that you cannot accept their conclusions as valid. This whole scientific effort needs to be reset and run by real scientists who are willing to be unbiased in their research, experimental design, and conclusions. Climate scientists are degrading the public concept of science.
Bornagain as a voltarian, you seem to miss the common sense approach of simple thermometer readings, over time.
But then, common sense is not so common!
Barabbas has made a stirical ,-) comment. There are ALREADY islands going underwater. But hell, if you donot live there who cares? Hell, why should i, too?
Lets remind the definition of Politic– showing sound or pragmatic judgment, prudent, judicious.
Are we there yet?
We truly have reached Orwellian times. The voters of America have with the slimmest of margins voted for a cabal of lying and truth-denying ignoramuses. Worse, they are on a mission to destroy our ability to distil what is true by blinding science. It is no wonder that Chomsky has labeled the Republican party of the USA as the most dangerous organization on Earth today.
http://www.ecowatch.com/noam-chomsky-trump-2093271018.html
Say goodbye to the past 8 years of politicizing a half-baked pseudo scientific proposition, namely human induced global warming, aka anthropogenic warming, aka climate change,aka climate mitigation.
A new dawn of real scientific work and discovery is about to start, putting the final nails in the coffin of this menacing global bandwagon that has done nothing other than making the poor poorer, the middle class poor and a tiny political elite wealthy beyond imagination. Say goodbye to green energy scam too while you are at it.
For insightful information and discussions please visit us at:
https://plus.google.com/u/1/communities/105386304309909999553
Sorry Cyrus, the opposite is obviously going to happen. Politicized idiots and machiavellian power players will attempt to shut down real science in order to blind the world from seeing what we are doing.
The scientific consensus stands, despite your political blinders, that humanity is affecting our planet now in unprecedented ways through altering the composition of our atmosphere. We are on the way to doubling the CO2 content.
Sooner rather than later the world will want to see the cabal of Republican conspirators hang from the nearest lamppost. The world will not forget and not forgive the sins that Trump and his horror cabinet of eco criminals will commit.
Samh is on it, Voltaire and Manz think big words waltzed around can get them out of the tremometer readings!
Donot blame the Reps too much, if CrookdClintons had been decently honest and d.e.m.o.c.r.a.t.i.c., we should all have a fighting chance withSenSanders.
Only the janitor dwells and cleans in the Center Aisle! But who would know that?
“I believe that climate research is necessary, but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”
That says it all…
But just to make things clear:
1) There is not a single scientist that seriously claims that global warming has anything to do with human activities (at a considerable degree at least). Those who do are not scientists, even if they are teaching at universities.
2) The climate of our planet is so complex that anyone who says he understands its inner-workings or that he can model them, is definitely silly and unscientific. The only thing that is clear right now is that the sun’s activity directly affects the earth’s climate and we can do absolutely nothing about that.
3) Modern climate “scientists” have been caught lying, saying stupid things, promoting government propaganda after being paid by the government. So, putting one’s trust to them is really naive, to say the least. In fact, modern science in general is not what it used to be in the days of Newton, Galileo and Tesla. Today, it lacks the brains, the proper education, the independence and the courage to function.
4) There are countless other threats to humanity and life on earth that none can deny, but those go totally unnoticed. The persistence of some on this one silly thing is thought provoking.
5) This quote should be very carefully considered and not taken lightly: “is this really about some neo-Malthusian discussion about population control that we’re talking about here?”. This is not something laughable and really demands consideration. Putting a ban or a tax on CO2 (which makes no sense at all by the way, as far as limiting the supposed effects of greenhouse gases is concerned) is slavery and every thinking person wondering why they push for these policies so hard cannot overlook the giant elephant in the room, pointed out by the people, the statements, the mentalities, the facts.
It is nice that someone that worked for NASA opens a decent public discussion about these issues for once. I don’t know how close to NASA this guy was, but NASA’s credibility just got a tiny boost in my eyes while reading his comments. First time this happens in my lifetime in regards to NASA.
Trump has taught businessmen what doing business should be like.
Trump has taught reporters what reporting should be like.
Trump has taught politicians what politics should be all about.
It seems that now it is time for him to teach scientists what science is all about.
I am not trying to say he is perfect (although there is definitely some degree of perfection involved in him – especially the way he destroyed Hitlary). I am just noting how messed-up this world must be for desperately needing a redneck billionaire to open the eyes of the general public and the eyes of the people at high posts (not so much luck on the last group though…).
Maybe he manages to make the dream a reality: to trigger the brains of individuals back into operation once again. Allowing every individual to think for himself and not consider anyone else’s logic or facts reliable or trustworthy. Then we might be able to use words like “critical thinking” and “science” without the quotes around them…
Here’s some news for gullible journalists who unfortunately also staff The Intercept: scientists are just as easy to manipulate and corrupt as the rest of the population. Remember that a “vast majority” of experts with impressive degrees had also solemnly decreed that Hillary Clinton would be the next president.
Global warming, now often described as “climate change” has become a religion promoted by criminal elites for their own good. Safeguarding the life on this planet is the least of their concerns. It is just another control mechanism for them to extend their reach over the Earth’s population. They co-opted the legitimate environmental concerns by throwing out real science in the process.
“Global warming, now often described as “climate change” has become a religion promoted by criminal elites for their own good.”
Really? And what “own good” would that be? Talk about Orwellian bullshit! The truth is the exact opposite: those who profit from greenhouse gas emissions and who don’t want to give up their destructive lifestyles have propagandized and lied that global warming isn’t real or isn’t human- caused. You and they are the criminals, not 97% of climate scientists.
This article was fascinating and how ironic that I came to the opposite conclusion of the author. I finally have hope that good science might prevail in his question of global warming as Trump appears to have made a great selection here with Shank.
As a scientist, it sickens me to see the horrific politicization of climatology; and the damage from this sham science goes beyond just this field as it tarnishes the image of science in the public mind. No one can extrapolate future temperature trends with certitude and any good scientist would understand this simple concept. In addition, instead of unbiased research to understand the benefits and costs associated with CO2 emissions, we have a determined effort to generated fear among a public that for the most part lacks the ability to critically think for themselves. Thus we have non-scientists in influential positions parroting talking points as if their lives depended up-on it and firing up other “climate activists” that also lack the ability to understand the nuances of real science.
When the money only goes to researchers who support the global warming alarmist hypothesis, then the research results will only be reported as supporting the global warming alarmist agenda. Very simple concept; broken scientific field. I cannot in anyway trust data or conclusions coming from “scientists” whose livelihood is completely dependent on confirming political correctness.
I highly doubt you are an actual scientist, surely not one who studies the climate.
There is a reason that “money only goes to researchers who support the global warming”. That is because the data overwhelmingly support this conclusion.
Give me a single legitimate example that climate science is a “broken scientific field”. You can’t and you wont.
What is happening is that politicians and other moneyed interests are exploiting the publics ignorance in how science actually works. Claiming that science is corrupt in the same way politics is is quite telling. For that matter, why anyone would believe a politician telling you this is beyond me.
“I believe that climate research is necessary, but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”
That says it all…
But just to make things clear:
1) There is not a single scientist that seriously claims that global warming has anything to do with human activities (at a considerable degree at least). Those who do are not scientists, even if they are teaching at universities.
2) The climate of our planet is so complex that anyone who says he understands its inner-workings or that he can model them, is definitely silly and unscientific. The only thing that is clear right now is that the sun’s activity directly affects the earth’s climate and we can do absolutely nothing about that.
3) Modern climate “scientists” have been caught lying, saying stupid things, promoting government propaganda after being paid by the government. So, putting one’s trust to them is really naive, to say the least. In fact, modern science in general is not what it used to be in the days of Newton, Galileo and Tesla. Today, it lacks the brains, the proper education, the independence, the conscience and the courage to function.
4) There are countless other threats to humanity and life on earth that none can deny, but those go totally unnoticed. The persistence of some on this one silly thing is thought provoking.
5) This quote should be very carefully considered and not taken lightly: “is this really about some neo-Malthusian discussion about population control that we’re talking about here?”. This is not something laughable and really demands consideration. Putting a ban or a tax on CO2 (which makes no sense at all by the way, as far as limiting the supposed effects of greenhouse gases is concerned) is slavery and every thinking person wondering why they push for these policies so hard cannot overlook the giant elephant in the room, pointed out by the people, the statements, the mentalities, the facts.
It is nice that someone that worked for NASA opens a decent public discussion about these issues for once. I don’t know how close to NASA this guy was, but NASA’s credibility just got a tiny boost in my eyes while reading his comments. First time this happens in my lifetime in regards to NASA.
Trump has taught businessmen what doing business should be like.
Trump has taught reporters what reporting should be like.
Trump has taught politicians what politics should be all about.
It seems that now it is time for him to teach scientists what science is all about.
I am not trying to say he is perfect (although there is definitely some degree of perfection involved in him – especially the way he destroyed Hitlary). I am just noting how messed-up this world must be for desperately needing a redneck billionaire to open the eyes of the general public and the eyes of the people at high posts (not so much luck on the last group though…).
Maybe he manages to make the dream a reality: to trigger the brains of individuals back into operation once again. Allowing every individual to think for himself and not consider anyone else’s logic or facts reliable or trustworthy. Then we might be able to use words like “critical thinking” and “science” without the quotes around them…
Let’s just quickly go through all of these points because they are excellent examples of the kind of misinformation that gets put out there by people.
“1) There is not a single scientist that seriously claims that global warming has anything to do with human activities (at a considerable degree at least). Those who do are not scientists, even if they are teaching at universities.”
This is the most incredible assertion I think I have seen online in a long time. Really? This is your claim? Despite the fact that 97% of climate scientists say that humans are directly driving the current changes to the global climate? The fact that every major scientific organisation on the planet says the same thing? I mean, I have to say this is some wonderful black = white stuff. If you could please provide some evidence for your claim, I would love to see it, because it’s not just counter to the facts, it’s counter to the fabric of reality itself.
“2) The climate of our planet is so complex that anyone who says he understands its inner-workings or that he can model them, is definitely silly and unscientific. The only thing that is clear right now is that the sun’s activity directly affects the earth’s climate and we can do absolutely nothing about that.”
What are you talking about? Who on earth have you been talking to? Have you ever read a science paper in your life? No, that is not what the models say, that is not what climate scientists say, that is not what pretty much anyone reputable in the field says. The only ones who claim this are either provably funded by fossil fuel propaganda or in the tiny minority in their field.
“3) Modern climate “scientists” have been caught lying, saying stupid things, promoting government propaganda after being paid by the government. So, putting one’s trust to them is really naive, to say the least. In fact, modern science in general is not what it used to be in the days of Newton, Galileo and Tesla. Today, it lacks the brains, the proper education, the independence, the conscience and the courage to function.”
This is a great example of where you really need to show your work. Please provide your evidence for climate “scientists” (I mean holy cow, now you’re saying they’re not even scientists? You’re saying science=/=science?) have “been caught lying”.
“4) There are countless other threats to humanity and life on earth that none can deny, but those go totally unnoticed. The persistence of some on this one silly thing is thought provoking.”
Please list some of these threats. Love to seem them.
“5) This quote should be very carefully considered and not taken lightly: “is this really about some neo-Malthusian discussion about population control that we’re talking about here?”. This is not something laughable and really demands consideration. Putting a ban or a tax on CO2 (which makes no sense at all by the way, as far as limiting the supposed effects of greenhouse gases is concerned) is slavery and every thinking person wondering why they push for these policies so hard cannot overlook the giant elephant in the room, pointed out by the people, the statements, the mentalities, the facts.”
The CO2 output of our species is directly contributing to climate change, ergo reduce the carbon output, reduce the impact. I mean, this is not rocket science, it’s climate science. Then you say putting a tax on carbon is SLAVERY? Really? That’s your idea? And people accuse climate science of being “alarmist”. Finally, you talk about “every thinking person wondering why they push for these policies so hard cannot overlook the giant elephant in the room, pointed out by the people, the statements, the mentalities, the facts.” I mean, I almost think you’re running a false flag operation on climate science denial here, this stuff is laughable. Please do take the time to actually read what scientists are saying. You can go on Google Scholar or Research Gate and read papers directly. This whole comment reeks of someone who is getting their information from agenda-driven blogs and media outlets.
I don’t know if you noticed, but the science division has not the most brightest stars of society lately…
Whether you see the utterly stupid ways scientists structure modern financial systems, the utterly stupid ways they measure the safety of electronic devices, the utterly stupid ways they make assumption on assumption, the utterly stupid choices they make on research fields, the utterly stupid ways they collect data, the utterly stupid ways they talk, they think and act.
Of course there are fields that are more healthy, but certainly they all suffer from at least two diseases: dependency on money and lust for (even temporal) recognition.
If you were not living in a cave for the last 10 years, you would not need to ask for examples of climate science being a “broken scientific field”. It is self-evident that MANY fields of science are broken today, each to its own degree. And climate science is only one of the top fatalities. And even if you were indeed in a cave for the last 10 years, just go listen to what climate scientists say themselves. They usually discredit themselves quite well.
So, give us a break with this “holy scientific priesthood”, please.
We’ve had enough of them already.
We didn’t need a politician to tell us that science is corrupt. That’s 1+1=2.
I have been through universities and I can tell you that in there you meet the worst of society.
On top of that, most university scientists nowadays have a lower way IQ than the average private industry engineer.
And this is not an accident by the way. Engineering flaws usually become apparent immediately and stupidity margins are really tight for most engineering jobs.
But for university staff (especially on fields where science meets wild speculation and non-testability – and climate science is one of those), an error might not become apparent for generations. Take the classification of native Americans and native Australians into non-evolved animal species for example. And I dare to say that this “error” has not been corrected yet. Let’s not go into the crimes that modern science has committed, because this will end up being a whole article and I am pretty sure that the biased site owners will censor my post anyway.
Nowadays, you can even go on YouTube and watch online lectures by university professors. Despite the fact that it is really good to have that kind of access (and thus not to have to be a “scientist” by profession to really know what you are talking about), it is really easy to weight the intelligence of university staff from multiple fields of science as well.
If you want my humble opinion, most of the modern scientists are full of knowledge but empty of intelligence.
I have seen many remarkable and super-intelligent people in my life, and some small portion of them was indeed scientists, but what I see today in mainstream science is often embarrassing for human intelligence.
Lots of words, to say not much, but by definition Science is fact and cannot be corrupted. Peopla are corrupt and their interpretations are more correctly “profitised” than “politicised”.
Honey, you cannot break Science, just like you cannot repeal or redirect Gravity, Science is just another word for Evidence. By the time you find out, its gone!
When there are “beliefs” on opposing ends, no matter what position you think is true, you end up with a politicized situation. This fact doesn’t deny the facts of climate change. In case you require simpler language, here it is: you live in an era, when the polluting automobile traffic is horrendous in every large city on the globe. The result is an epidemic of cancer and nearly unbreathable air close to and within every major urban center. Everyone knows this, including you. What is really politicizing the issue is this: that the wealthy elites who are stakeholders of the current socio-economic system know fully well, that no meaningful action to change this can take place under their continued rule. So you choose to terrorize those with lesser means than you, into letting this planet turn uninhabitable. This is the simplest way I can put it for you.
I definetely agree with your thoughts. I always feel that something is wrong when someone is talking about “climate change” (actually just global warming) having no idea about what the Milankovitch Cycles are.
By the time of Rio+20 conference, we had an amazing text from some great specialists of climatology, geology and geography of Brasil talking about several data against the hypothesis of global warming caused by human activities. This text was sent to our president, but she ignored as well as all the brazilian media.
Oh really? Who were those specialists may I ask? I can assure you that literally every working climate scientist is well aware of Milankovitch Cycles. This is not some giant conspiracy (which, let’s be honest, is one of the most incoherent suggestions in politics today, how would this even work?), this is the physical reality of our planet.
Christopher Shank has a history degree from John Hopkins and is not at all a scientist. So right there is the politicization of the issue of our times.
As anyone who has ever tried to look up a virus or a computer technical problem knows, the folks with a financial interest are really good at spamming the net with nonsense. And maybe they’ll win here. But the good news is that it takes only one Loki, one hero for humanity, to see that justice is done in the end. When the oceans are boiling and the rich and the famous guarded by their killer drones have all fled to Fortress Antarctica, when the self-declared Saviors of Humanity say that their precious Ark is the only hope left for life, we need one person, just one person, alive and sane inside the fence, to do what needs be done, to take one of those high-powered rounds and strike that damned rocket down, so that no wretched and contemptible filth of a race might spread their slaves and their mindless patter across the stars
Intergalactic, planetary, planetary, intergalactic
Intergalactic, planetary, planetary, intergalactic
Intergalactic, planetary, planetary, intergalactic
Intergalactic, planetary, planetary, intergalactic
Another dimension, another dimension
Another dimension, another dimension
Another dimension, another dimension
Another dimension, another dimension
Another dimension, another dimension
Another dimension
Well, now, don’t you tell me to smile
You stick around I’ll make it worth your while
…
Reminds of the movie Prometheus — they keep him from taking off
In February, 2006, under the George W. Bush Admin, the words “to understand and protect the home planet” were removed from NASA’s mission statement which now reads: “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.” Space exploration is a luxury. Understanding and protecting the biosphere that modern society is still wholly dependent upon is imperative.
If Hawking is right about humanity we have 1000 yrs left no matter what we do, right? BTW, if a preacher said 1000 yrs folks would well dismiss it, not take it too seriously.
So, Hawking is all for “climate engineering” another planet isn’t he? It seems to me that if we admit man has caused climate change it should be a source of some amount of hope provided we can actually “climate engineer” the moon or mars in the short term.
I believe, if Hawking is right, saving the planet is hopeless. We would have had to known before the industrial rev that we should plant as many trees as we fucking can… and what if the soln were exactly that simple?
I agree with you to the extent that if we are going to experiment with climate engineering we should do it in a place where there is presently no life to destroy in the process. But aside from that I would feel remiss in not pointing out that people who are brilliant in one field are not ordinarily so in others. That certainly applies to Stephen Hawking.
It also appears that there is factual evidence in support of the contention that we could continue to inhabit this planet for a million times longer than either Hawking or your hypothetical preacher suggest. It will become painfully obvious within the next century at most that the current consumption driven economy cannot be sustained, and that an alternate paradigm will be required. There already exist hundreds of known native cultures that have lived harmoniously with nature for millennia, and there is no logical reason why the rest of us could not adopt many of their ways, rather than seeking to “convert” them or, as is the typical current practice, exterminate them.
I’m w/ ya sir. But that ain’t gonna happen; the US simply cannot allow it. National defense is connected to industrialization so unless or until everyone on the planet can be trusted no one, absolutely no one on this planet will commit to ending mining of any kind, steel production, etc on and on.
The climate agreements are bogus on that basis (each nations defense) alone. It’s all fucking sham.
On Hawking, you’re right and reminds of the novel Flowers for Algernon. But this applies to climate scientists as well, the overlap there seems to imply these guys are GIANT slayers when it comes to intelligence if they really understand and know what they are talking about. The subject of turbulence alone is so so so complicated. I’m not speaking out of turn here; I had grad level course in fundamentals of turbulence… this so called fundamental was no less than a phd level course, .. I got an A but in all honesty I gotta tell ya, I don’t believe I understand it.
True and prob right on surviving past another thousand years, but it is about the quality of life and the resources necessary or just getting by at a subsistence level?
Imhop.
The worst legacy of the Trump presidency will be his effect on Earth’s climate.
Trump is a denier nowadays whereas he wasn’t before, and that is for political purposes. It is to bring the big political clout of the Koch donor network into his tent. The agenda to get rid of the EPA and NASA and NOAA’s great climate research work comes from Charles and David Koch. They were the originators of the anti-environmental political movement and the almost all the funding for the denialist movement comes from people who are inside the Koch Donor network. Trump knows he needs that vast political organization to stabilize his grip on the Presidency.
To mitigate, the people have to protest for the climate in large numbers and show strength like the DAPL protesters. Dems have to unite and filibuster to block appointments of denialists where they can and table anti-environmental regulations as much as possible. Scientists need to to speak out louder and stronger as well.
On the economic side, private industry and other nations’ space programs such as China, Russia, India, and the ESA (European Space Agency) will have to step up Earth monitoring programs of their own to offset the loss of critical functions currently being done by NASA and NOAA.
Since all other nations on Earth besides the USA are committed to combating climate change, I think there’s real power in their continuing earth monitoring from space. Also expect CEO’s of the private space travel corporations, who will of course see the obvious profits to be made by filling in for a cutback NASA. Private industry can also employ disgruntled government scientists who may quit out of frustration with Trump’s politically motivated climate policies.
Given what is already known about climate science, it is also very late in the game to try to suppress that knowledge by political maneuvering.These things work to the advantage of the people and the earth. This will help mitigate the effects of the re-organization of Earths food chain andthe shift in climatic zones due to global warming, which, of course, is already underway.
To their credit, the GOP has finally addressed one of the most significant threats to republican hegemony, scientific research and a well educated public.
I wonder how all that politics got into “politicized science”? Must surely be the scientists.
>>> I wonder how all that politics got into “politicized science”? Must surely be the scientists.<<<
Psychopaths and money drives Global Warming.
Hot Heads come out of the woodwork.
Sure, whatever the hell that means.
Congratulations, you’ve managed to fail the Turing test.
Mars’ atmosphere is 96% CO2.
If CO2 causes Global Warming… THEN…
Why is the avg temperature of Mars only 67 degrees F?
Could its distance from the sun have anything to do with that?
because mar’s atmosphere is 100 times thinner, i imagine. do you have a link showing otherwise?
Yes or it would be frightfully hot, even with increaesd distance from the sun, jungle-like.
Two reasons: #1: the atmosphere of Mars is far less dense than that of the earth, and so even with 100% CO2 there would be insufficient heat absorption capacity to warm the planet; #2 Mars is about 1.5 times as far from the sun as is earth, and so receives only43% the insolation.
If you want to compare planets, why not compare the earth with Venus? It too has a mostly CO2 atmosphere that is about the same mass as that of the earth, and is at about 73% of the distance, receiving about 1.9 times the insolation. Tell me, in your non-radiative transfer model, what should its surface temperature be? Actually it is a bit over 860 F – hot enough to melt lead. Even Al Gore could get that one right.
Again, Mars’ surface temperature is MINUS 67F and the atmospheric pressure is 0.09psi.
If you need to be told these facts, and can’t assimilate them into your theories, then you are just wasting bandwidth.
Easy one, Earth is closer to the sun and Mars is the 4th away from the sun.
There is one ray of hope, and it’s not from government. Emissions will likely decline or rise more slowly than anticipated. What makes me so confident in saying that?
-First, fossil fuels are finite resources. No matter how much you burn, you can’t get it back. (Without millions of years of heat and pressure, or (if you’re a creationist) a worldwide flood- neither of which are coming anytime soon. The less you have, the more the price increases. (And that doesn’t take into account things like global instability in oil-producing regions.) The less you burn, the less you emit. Even if new sources are found (like tar sands), they only become profitable once the cost to extract them is below the oil price.
-Second, when you reduce the quantity of fuels used, you spend less money. Who doesn’t want to save money? Numerous Fortune 500 companies have reduced emissions and saved billions of dollars in the process. You don’t even have to believe in Global Warming to favor this. (See, for example, the SC Republican Party (whose headquarters was required to be LEED certified by Roger Milliken), Milliken company themselves, Bob Jones University (who actually got an EnergyStar award from the EPA(!), or the personal homes of Burt Rutan or George W. Bush.)
-Third, technologies are making alternative energy cheaper and smaller, be it solar, wind or hydro. Already, in many areas, these sources are profitable even without government subsidies. (By the way, the Cato institute- not a left-wing think-tank by any means- calls for eliminating the around $40 billion in subsidies for oil- FAR more than the subsidies for alternative energy. (And, to be fair, Cato wants to eliminate those too.))
Isn’t this the agency that made up data for sites it had no recording equipment based on figures to prove the results it wanted?
“And the cry went up! Without money we can’t continue our research!” Who said this? The RJ Reynolds Scientists who were proving tobacco was good for you. later they discovered “Man-Made Global Warming” and the government feeding tube and all was happy again.
Except for all those falling temperatures! Dang that Solar influence! How dare it have a greater influence than mankind?
Both Judith Curry and Roger Pielke Jr. are regularly called deniers by the Democrat Party supporters I converse with. In fact neither are “climate change deniers” and both accept the role of greenhouse gases (CO2, etc.) in warming the climate. They are mainstream. We see a bunch of extremists trying to hijack the debate by making non-scientific claims (that climate change is causing more tornados, more extreme weather, etc.). Anyone who disagrees with a climate extremist is deemed a “denier” by them.
I’ll call Alleen Brown a climate extremist too if she thinks there’s scientific evidence that extreme weather can be linked to climate change. She just about implies it above.
“Scientists now have a strong understanding of how climate impacts extreme heat and cold events” <– Not true. They have no scientific proof.
Actually, with regard to hurricane formation, global warming, by reducing the termperature gradient between the upper and lower troposphere, causes a reduction in the nunber of strong hurricanes, which is exactly what we’ve been seeing for the last decade.
Whether this is actually an effect of increased surface temperature or not does remain to be determined but only the mass media propagates the notion that a warmer atmosphere leads to stronger hurricanes and more of them.
Mark Pawelek: Happy to see you point this out! I felt that the author really misrepresented Curry in this article. The blog post linked to even SUPPORTED climate research. I think I’ll have to stop reading The Intercept.
I believe in the Heat Balance equation. A steady source of heat is counterbalanced by a steady outflow of radiation lower on the spectrum.
Scientists tell us that the Sun’s radiation is essentially constant. We assume that the outflow of radiation to space is also constant, is it?
High altitude particles (aka volcanoes) reduce the inflow of heat by reflection.
CO2 is suppose to trap heat. YOU CANNOT TRAP HEAT. There may be a separation (aka stratification) hot at low levels, cool at high levels, but you cannot trap it.
You CAN store heat.
It’s called Water. AKA Ocean.
It’s heated by the Sun.
Based upon the Earth’s distance from the sun… which varies +/- 5 million miles over time because of our eliptical orbit around the beast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss
Our atmosphere exists because of the ocean. No other planet in our solar system has water covering its surface.
Global Warming is BS.
Yes, the oceans act like a heat sink. No matter how insulated something is, it will eventually reach “Heat Balance” with the environment.
Global Warming tries to tell us that the entire environment (i.e. Space) is heating up also.
>>> Global Warming tries to tell us that the entire environment (i.e. Space) is heating up also. <<<
First, Global Warming is a POLITICAL "term of art." It's nonsense.
EVERYTHING is based on the distance between the Earth and Sun… and, IT IS CHANGING. It goes in cycles… just like the Sun's 11 year cycles.
Over the next several million years, Dinosaurs may inhabit the Earth again… or, Woolly Mammoths will.
Not a damn thing any human can do about it.
The heating of the Earth isn’t cyclic. It’s skyrocketing and it has been for several decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
ACD is real and thermometers prove it.
Starting to think ACDDeniers are somewhat impotent?
“Our atmosphere exists because of the ocean”
So, the atmosphere is mainly water vapor?
The last time I looked, and breathed, it was mainly nitrogen and oxygen. The atmosphere exists because of green plants.
If you want to find an atmosphere composed mainly of an (evaporated) ocean with no contribution from life, whatsoever, you need to go about 23 million miles closer to the sun. Presently, it’s that bright star in the western sky that you can see just after sunset.
We don’t really know why the atmosphere exists.
Plan on a saltwater fish fry!
Let me give you some importance and validity: you are part of the problem.
Others will be part of the solution.
Like you caint read a thermometer?
It isn’t enough to believe an equation, you have to understand it.
No, CO2 is not an adamantine padlock that collects heat and locks it permanently under the Earth’s atmosphere. But that isn’t what anyone claims. What happens is the same as happens in an actual physical greenhouse you might have in a garden – the heat passes in easily and passes out with a bit more difficulty, and so more of it is “in transit” in the Earth’s atmosphere at any given time. You’ve seen this in visible light on cloudy nights in the city – the streetlights light up the clouds, and the sky gets brighter. You can’t trap light, but the sky is brighter anyway – riddle me that! Same happens with the infrared radiated by the hot ground.
>>> No, CO2 is not an adamantine padlock that collects heat and locks it permanently under the Earth’s atmosphere. <<<
BS.
Why is the avg temperature of Mars only 67 degrees F?
Mars' atmosphere is 96% CO2.
Sorry Wnt… I missed your “not” in the “C02 is NOT … padlock.”
Because it’s farther from the sun.
http://www.space.com/16903-mars-atmosphere-climate-weather.html
You folks need to do a little research before posting scientific nonsense. First of all, CO2 does trap heat;; it happens this way: The sun is approximately a black body at temperature 6000K and so its blackbody spectrum is peaked in the visible. Most of the energy received by the earth is within the visible, near UV and near IR. The earth reflects some of that energy back into space and absorbs some, reaching a surface temperature of around 290K, causing it to radiate as a 290K black body. Now the peak for a 290K blackbody is in the mid infrared, where CO2 is a strong absorber. In other words, the presence of CO2 diminishes the ability of the planet to shed heat. As a result, the planet’s temperature increases, shifting the peak in its blackbody curve to a lower wavelength, diminishing the effect of the CO2 absorption.
In support of design of thermal imaging systems for military applications, the Office of Naval Research published The Infrared Handbook in 1978. Its Library of Congress Catalog Card Number is 77-90786. Should you consult it, you will find both the scientific background and experimental data plotting atmospheric loss versus wavelength, showing where each atmospheric constituent contributes to absorption.
OK, so now you are going to tell us that the Navy is part of the global warming consipiracy.
CO2, by absorbing certain infrared frequencies – moving electrons to higher energy states, slows the rate that energy at those frequencies can be radiated away from the surface. The slower rate of energy radiated out through the atmosphere causes the earth’s surface temperature to increase until a new, higher, steady-state temperature is established. In non-techincal terms, the earth becomes warmer.
Damn, the level of science education in this country is appalling.
I’m not religious, but I do hope that there is some post-corporeal retribution for people like Shank, who willfully destroy the planet. Think about that. He is, along with people like Trump, deliberately trying to take down an entire planet. Walking Death Stars. Please, if there is a Hell, make it far worse than any Baptist preacher ever depicted it. And let Shank and Trump be slow burned at 215 degrees every day for eternity.
I don’t believe in that kind of hell, because God is good. One penalty is more straightforward – all people are part of the same underlying atman, the essence that actually feels things, and so when one hurts another he hurts himself. There is no need or call or desire for such insane retribution, which would be beyond cruel for a man let alone for goodness itself. And the other penalty is that God is a creator, an author, who constantly rewrites and expands and revises. The characters worth saving, God keeps and expands … the ones who aren’t, well, God sees what out of them are worth doing something with in the next revision. I think God is also a bit of a Frankenstein; I think many of us have been stitched together from the least corrupt bits of several characters that came in an earlier version before us. And … I think usually it’s from people who hated one another.
That’s interesting.
Yes it is.
Article: Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado, has testified before Smith’s committee arguing, “There exists exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.”
If you want backup on this information, go read the IPCC AR5, that is exactly what it says. The author here refutes this with a bizarre non-sequitur about some other things might be affected by climate change. Possibly these mentioned items might be affected, but the point being that nothing Pielke Jr said was very controversial and is consensus science, and he was pilloried for saying this because it was apparently not alarmist enough for some. This is the very definition of politicization.
For the record the last Cat3 hurricane to hit the US was 11 years ago. The longest major hurricane drought in the past 100 years previous to now was 6 years.
Get a degree in Electrical Engineering with an emphasis on Thermodynamics.
Read my post below about path loss…. Save yourself a lifetime of worry.
I have a degree in electrical engineering and thermodynamics wasn’t required, that’s mechanical engineering.
And exactly what is an infrared microwave, Mr Antenna Man?
I haven’t bothered to read your free-path-loss references, but if I surmized from your postings that somehow the earth cools by radiating away radio-frequency energy, then I suppose there is no rational need to.
Mars, with a very rarified (0.09psi), almost non-existant atmosphere is cold for the same reason Venus (atmospheric pressure 900atm) is hot – and it isn’t so much distance from the sun, which is orders of magnitude below CO2 partial pressure as a driver of temperature.
By the way, Mars’ surface temperature is MINUS 67F. Do they not believe in negative numbers in your school?
I have a degree in electrical engineering. It’s much more complicated than you may think. Greenhouse gases warm the planet, or we would be much colder than we are, if the energy in > energy out then the earth warms. There are many paths here. It’s the energy balance equations that matter. The real question is climate sensitivity to CO2. This has been an arm waving exercise for 25 years, and still is.
Pre-induastrial, we’d be 50F cooler than we are, which tells you prettty much what is the main driver of earth’s surface temperature (insolation or 300ppm of CO2).
Thank you Photosymbiosis. The permafrost is melting releasing methane and carbon dioxide at ever increasing rates.
Might there be ant terrestrial applications for NASAS EM Drive?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/11/19/nasas-physics-defying-em-drive-passes-peer-review/#fda303276e2c
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/11/10/impossible-spaceship-engine-called-emdrive-actually-works-leaked-nasa-report-reveals/
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/11/30/could-dark-matter-be-powering-the-emdrive/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/
This is not really my field and I have no right to an opinion, but my guess, for what it’s worth, is that the Emdrive is like a photon drive, but it is releasing all-energy particles of some type for which vacuum has a high refractive index (“Free solitons” is the guess I’m going with now… solitons can cross very small distances of vacuum, but what if somehow they could propagate within it?). It turns out that the momentum of a photon increases in proportion to the refractive index of the material it is passing through. So if the Emdrive could produce free solitons that had a high refractive index in vacuum, then it would produce more momentum than a photon drive, as observed.
If such a form of energy transmission did exist, then who knows what messages from the stars are encoded in it, and passing through us unnoticed every day?
“Global Warming” as a result of carbon/co2… whatever — IS BS.
The Earth (and ALL other celestial rocks) is heated by the Sun.
Primarily… Infrared microwaves (#1).
DISTANCE from SUN is the cause of global heating or cooling.
The Earth orbits around the sun… and its orbital distance from the sun varies over time. The orbital distance IS NOT STATIC.
Earth orbital variance over time is +/- 5 million miles from the average of ~93 million miles.
Using mathematical equations for calculating path loss for infrared microwave frequencies will yield decibels in gain or loss from one orbit to the next.
Result: You can calculate warming or cooling with almost every orbit.
ps… for all the dickheads out there…
Here is the formula and description of the concept of path loss…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss
Gotta love armchair scientists like TS, that settle the difficult science of AGM at a stroke! At least it doesn’t involve an ice cube in a glass of water (“look! No rise in water level!”)
Go away.
I can use that equation to calculate signal strength of infrared radiation received from the sun every year.
You can’t.
Have you ever heard of a ‘radiotelescope’???? Do you know how they work?
You should
Hmmm, are you using that Free space path loss thingy to calculate today’s temperature at Diamond Head or at the summit of Mauna Kea? I assume Hawaii is the same distance from the sun whether you need a swimsuit or a parka.
>>> Hmmm, are you using that Free space path loss thingy to calculate today’s temperature at Diamond Head or at the summit of Mauna Kea? <<<
No… I'm calculating DECIBELS of energy… over the LIT half of the planet.
Decibels is a logarthmic-based value that can be applied to almost any other set of equations you want.
That is the most awful way of calculating insolation that I have ever heard of, by orders of magnitude. Why even pull out a formula that is affected by antenna aperture, as calculated for a hypothetical isotropic antenna? Just observe the Earth’s insolation per unit area (It is all based on observation anyway) and put the inverse square correction for the Earth’s elliptical orbit – which is not changing by any significant amount from year to year anyway.
It’s absurd. And even if you figure out the energy absorbed by Earth and its radiation as a blackbody, that still doesn’t take into account that Earth isn’t a blackbody really, and above all, the fact that *what is seen from space in IR* is what is at that temperature. You can be at a given altitude and latitude and have very different temperature depending on whether you’re five miles down in a mine or standing out under the stars. And you can have a very different temperature based on whether there’s a layer of hot CO2 in the atmosphere high above you or not, and how much there is. The energy budget of the Earth remains the same (aside from albedo, etc.) but you’re not at that topmost layer that is cooling to space.
Have you heard of ultra violet radiation and the ozone layer? Do you also deny them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(electromagnetic_radiation)
>>> that settle the difficult science of AGM at a stroke<<<
Mars’ atmosphere is 96% CO2.
If CO2 causes Global Warming… THEN…
Why is the avg temperature of Mars only 67 degrees F?
Because it’s atmosphere is much thinner and it’s further from the sun.
maybe you need a holiday dude. are you starting to write numbers on the walls and talk to ghosts. step away from your computer and get on your meds.
It’s because the atmosphere on Mars is very thin, and it’s further from the sun.
Answered above. If CO2 doesn’t cause gobal warming…THEN..
Why is the avg temperature of Venus [sic] 860 degrees F?
Can we please stop calling these people “skeptics?” Scientists are skeptics. A skeptic respects expertise besides his own. He accepts corrections and learns from them, and sometimes changes his mind. Deniers do none of those things. But most of all, skeptics are not gullible. They don’t accept a claim merely because it confirms a political belief or allows an inconvenient reality to be dismissed. I see allegations in the right wing opinion media every day that all the world’s scientific institutions are in collusion to present a false body of climate science. To someone who knows scientists, that’s a conspiracy theory that would make a 9-11 Truther blush. One would have to be extremely gullible to accept the allegation, not a skeptic.
Can we please stop calling these people “deniers?” The only climate change deniers in this political issue are enviro-activists, demanding an unchanging climate set at an arbitrarily-chosen level from 150 or so years ago, as a knee-jerk claim which seems to confirm a political belief (humans destroying the planet) while dismissing an inconvenient reality (surface temperatures plateauing while CO2 levels have risen. PhD-level climate scientists / atmospheric physicists have every right in the world to express skepticism, particularly when they are able to support that with peer-reviewed science journal-published citations supporting it. They most certainly respect the expertise of others who can conclusively support science-based conclusions. Enviro-activists don’t do that, but they are gullible, spouting unsupportable allegations about alleged right-wing opinion on “all the world’s scientific institutions conspiring to present a false body of climate science”, along with 911-style conspiracy theory concerning a sinister industry plot to bribe all the skeptic scientists into fabricating reports and viewpoints that they all know are false. One would have to be an extremely gullible anti-science, anti-intellectual person to accept that baseless corruption allegation.
“Global Warming” as espoused by Al Gore is A RELIGION… not science.
It’s one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, too… written by Karl Marx in 1846
I’ve heard a lot of things blamed on Marxism, but that is a new one.
>>> 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. <<
Global Government requires a Global Problem…. a common plan for THE CLIMATE (A GLOBAL "SOIL")….
Psychopaths always think they can rule the world.
Doesn’t seem like you’re a Truth Seeker. More of a Conspiracy Speaker. The basic concepts you appear to be refuting, without actually providing evidence, are used every day to make the products we depend on work. If you’re at all interested in a complete, well thought out review of reviews of peer reviewed work, try reading this: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
It’s relatively a-political, as much as such a thing can be considering what’s involved. Feel free to refute matters in there. Of course, if you don’t believe in widely agreed upon behaviours in the natural world, then there’s simply no talking sense to you. Any of us may disagree with the accuracy of models for observations, but to deny that well-established observations even exist or that they’re complete lies is lunacy. Scientific communities are the most reliable source of information known to humanity.
@ Celye
So what your saying is in a round-a-bout; without actually putting words of truth in your mouth …if I wished to get a grant, say a large one…a muther fucker of a grant; mucho dollars to study AGW or Global warming, or the corruption in the IPCC, or say a crumbling infrastructure of faulty or obselete weather data collection systems in the USA and abroad, or say the global geoengineering boom.
That such grand funds would be available to me as compared to the boon in AGW climate science granting available to the true believers; using computer predictive models, relying on past faulty and inaccurate metadata. And reguardless of the massive boon carbon tax now available to nations equaling Trillions of dollars to be used to futher such climate nonsense. And fuel the carbon tax pig trough fortunes of Soros and his Ilk.
Anything you don’t hold Soros responsible for?
Are you denying the fact that Soros generates massive amounts of CO2 in his new-found Methanol production process. Gaining a fortune under Obamas clean air act; diguising it as carbon capture, because its taken from coal in the methanol extraction process. That’s a good trick.
Did you know he has bought up all the coal in the USA, after waging a relentless eco war against those companies with his global warming bullshit. Putting thousands of miners out of work.
And so he receives a big checque from the government for pumping that CO2 that he gains from methanol extraction down old oil wells. To repressurizes the wells. Furthering his fortunes by getting a cheque from the oil companies for repressurizing the wells.
Soros is a trickster…
Soros is self admitted ’60 minutes’ asshole. Who fuels the global warming hoax to suit further, his pockets, and cause civil unrest with his grand fortunes.
One self-righteous SOB of a man who hates Russia, and anyone who has a valid argument against.
A hate filled man, who fuels further the hate and vitriol in the street because he did’nt get his way in the recent election for president.
One man who dumped a fortune into the Clintonistas gang who refuses to except the the results of the election for POTUS.
Soros a scoudrel of the highest order, who believes he is right to use his massive fortunes to change the world to his will. He believes he has the right to live, and lesser populations need to reduced drastically.
Well, Fuck you Gert and Mr George Soros and the horse you and he rode in own.
Are you enlightened SFB or will you simply admit your another paid Soros troll that goes around starting fires for him.
Science is faith-based according to the Intercept. What horror bringing in a skeptic — it almost reminds me of the scientific method of hypothesis/counter-hypothesis vs. We are right/Lock up deniers.
It speaks well for science when its opponents have to make stuff up to make their point. The article never mentions “faith.”
I don’t know who Alleen Brown is, but I do know I just read one of the best commentary on climate science and the fate of the practice. Well done. I’m glad you’re calling it global warming. Climate change is a bullshit euphemism that means absolutely nothing. It should actually be climate change-change, since we’re talking about acceleration of difference from a baseline. (Enough of my BS).
Science writing has gone into the shitter over the past 30 years. Science journalism has truly become integrated marketing communication. This may include science writing like: “this latest smartphone is awesome and tech kicks ass” tech piece. And for environmental writing topics become something like, “How climate change is no big thing.” or “Carbon dioxide is a nutrient and we’d be better off at 800 ppm and 5 degree C – so you should be worshiping oil and gas drillers, greenies.”
What Trump is doing is the old “merge and purge” to defund, defang, and eventually get rid of environmental protection. Climate is a state function and not a state to be protected like land, water and air. It’s really the flow of fluids, mass and energy between states. Our only hope is climate science goes into NOAA and EPA. Unfortunately NOAA is under Department of Commerce. That’s run by Wilbur Ross. But as all merges and purges go, that won’t happen. My guess is that Trump will put environmental protection under Department of Energy. And bury it under a subdivision and become a doormat to take the blame for industry’s messes. Or something to blame if deregulation doesn’t work.
On global warming and general environmental writing as presented in popular media again. It sucks. It has become about the writer – not the subject in today’s social media driven journalism. However, it seems like Ms Brown knows what she’s writing about. Hopefully The Intercept will make this a regular column. We’re dying here in the environmental reader-sphere. We need good content.
>>> I don’t know who Alleen Brown is, but I do know I just read one of the best commentary on climate science and the fate of the practice. <<<
Why don't you study radio electronics, instead?
You'll learn a lot more. Then, you'll abandon the BS about the political economic con game known as "Global Warming."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss
They can try to shut down data collection, but there are inevitable consequences that will be noticed regardless, and not far off into the future. Take a look at sea ice extent in the Arctic. I wouldn’t be surprised if next summer is the first ice-free summer in the Arctic. What sorts of excuses will we hear then?
Whatever happens, they will find an excuse for it. I put politicians in the same class as economists, philosophers and theologians: empirically determined facts, the axiom of falsafiability, and the necessity for experimental evidence to support any theory are simply not accepted by them. Showing them a curve that depicts the evolution of atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution will be dismissed as coincidence. Mass extinctions will be termed god’s will. There is no reasoning with them; we can only do our part to not contribute to the disaster by conserving resources and behaving in an environmentally ethical manner.
It’s one thing to claim that the current evidence is not strong enough to warrant taking action. It’s quite another to cut all research funding when the evidence at least warrants looking into it.
“Shank previously worked for Rep. Lamar Smith”
The same Lamar Smith responsible for SOPA? Why should we listen to his disciple?
I design antennas….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss
For your tinfoil hat? Direct link to Infowars maybe?
You are the one who said all humans need to be replaced.
You are Dr. Strangelove. I just pointed it out.
… I’ve been working with RF for decades…
I’ve even burned myself with RF on more than one occasion.
OUCH!
I’m not sure we’re having the same conversation.
More bogus pseudoscience: “the rhetoric about, let’s call this climate pollution, which is CO2, which I’m emitting here today.”
So yes, we breathe out CO2. It comes from the food we eat. Which comes from animals eating plants, or plants themselves. And how do plants grow? They take in atmospheric CO2. So this is no net change in CO2 – in contrast to digging multi-million-year-old fossil fuels out of the ground, burning them, and pumping the CO2 into the atmosphere. NOT steady-state. Basic, basic science. Earth-is-not-flat level.
Sigh. Here’s the scientific history of climate science and the discovery of how CO2 is warming the planet and radically changing the planet. Feel free to distribute: (Source: Milestones in Climate Science, by Spencer Weart, AIP):
http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
1824 Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.
1859 Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases could bring climate change.
1896 Arrhenius publishes the first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.
1897 Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange that includes feedbacks.
1930s A global warming trend since the late nineteenth century is reported. Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages.
1938 Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is under way, reviving interest in the question.
1956 Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.
1957 Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans is not readily absorbed by the oceans.
1960 Keeling accurately measures CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. The level is 315 ppm. The mean global temperature (a five-year average) is 13.9°C.
1963 Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in the CO2 level.
1965 Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of the climate system and the possiblity of sudden shifts.
1966 Emiliani’s analysis of deep-sea cores shows the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes.
1968 Studies suggest a possiblity of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically.
1969 The Nimbus 3 satellite begins to provide comprehensive global atmospheric temperature measurements.
1972 Ice cores and other evidence shows big climate shifts in the past between relatively stable modes in the space of a thousand years or so.
1975 Manabe and his collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models that show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2.
1976 Studies find that CFCs (1975) and methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect.
1979 A U.S. National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring about global warming of 1.5°C – 4.5°C.
1981 Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, a finding that raises confidence in models showing future greenhouse warming.
1982 Stong global warming since mid-1970s is reported; 1981 was the warmest year on record.
1985 Ramanathan and his collaborators announce that global warming may come twice as fast as expected, from a rise of methane and other trace greenhouse gases.
1988 Ice-core and biology studies confirm that living ecosystems make climate feedback by way of methane, which could accelerate global warming.
1991 Mt. Pinatubo erupts; Hansen predicts a cooling pattern, which will validate (by 1995) computer models of aerosol effects [and of the water vapor feedback effect].
1992 The study of ancient climates reveals climate sensitivity in the same range as that predicted independently by computer models.
1995 The breakup of Antarctic ice shelves and other signs show actual current warming in polar regions.
1998 Borehole data confirm an extraordinary warming trend. Qualms about arbitrariness in computer models diminish as teams model ice-age climate and dispense with special adjustments to reproduce current climate.
2001 Warming is observed in ocean basins; the match with computer models gives a clear signature of greenhouse-effect warming.
2003 Numerous observations raise concern that collapse of ice sheets (in West Antarctica and Greenland) can raise sea levels faster than most had believed.
2007 The level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 392 ppm. The mean global temperature a five-year average) is 14.5°C, the warmest in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years.
2015 and 2016 are the warmest years on record. Record-breaking floods and droughts have become a common feature of the global climate changes around the world, causing billions in damages. Arctic sea ice melt breaks new records.
Come on, enough is enough. It’s a big problem, and replacing fossil fuels with renewables is the only fix.
Replacing people with trees is the only fix to the Earth’s environmental problems.
I agree with you both, but fear that what will happen is that when the situation becomes intolerable, they will turn to the big corporations to use “climate engineering” to attempt to artificially deal with the situation. Like all massive projects, it will be expensive. And like all narrowly conceived ventures, it will have profound negative unintended consequences.
I am a physicist by training, but have long ago concluded that technology alone cannot solve our problems. We have too many people, and our western economic system is geared for wasteful consumption. No advanced culture on the planet fully embraces the concept that the resources of the earth are finite, and none of the western cultures (based on the Abrahamic religions) accepts the concept of the earth itself and all life on it as existing for any reason other than human exploitation.
The “climate engineering” is already going on and is already killing people. Jet fuel has been allowed to have unlimited sulfur content, even though it kills people, in part based on the justification that the sulfur compounds set global warming back by about six months from where it would be. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/05/ultra-low-sulfur-jet-fuel-radar The resulting highly visible contrails, dubbed “chemtrails”, are believed by conspiracy theorists to be evidence of some kind of globalist plot to poison people with jet aircraft. Which is true, even if not quite in the way some of them imagine.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Hope you don’t mind 1 million degree temperatures.
@ChasDokus
Well since your volunteering; I will plant the tree were I am at present, okie dok!
BTW how are you doing it; your suicide. Gun knife, rope, fall…hmm. Better not to make a big mess…
People like Chas and other “Global Warming” experts forget that this planet used to be inhabited by Dinosaurs in a tropical environment.
If they are really that worried about surviving another “cycle” of tropical temps, maybe they should cross breed with alligators.
Throw a pizza party and hump an alligator. How’s that for “freedom” to put your pecker wherever you want? Maybe legalize marriage between man and alligator?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss
Why don’t you learn something about radio electronics, antennas, infrared spectrum radio waves, and basic calculus?
The Earth’s orbit is not static. DISTANCE from SUN…. Period. +/- 5 million miles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss
Not a damn thing you can do about it. You might want to detonate the Doomsday Device tho….
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
On Lorenz:
I tried, and failed, to recreate his computational exp. on convection. I used RK4 and his discretization from the paper I think.
I could get a qualitative reproduction but not a quantitative; the pictures looked the same but the numbers were off.
I believe that was a lesson learned from that paper: that solving diff eq w/ a computer will spit out chaos.
CFD notoriously underpredicts or as sometimes characterized as “conservative” predictions. With OpenFoam availability, people should try to learn to use it, then go and grab airfoil data sets from the lab (available from NASA) and compare… It’s fun to see what you get and don’t get; it’s then fun to further investigate by using different turbulence models.
Lesson learned: solving diff eqn w/ a computer ain’t easy and turbulence modeling is nowhere near perfect. In fact it doesn’t even need to modeled but at the moment we have computer resource problems, so it has to be.
Pseudoscience does not exist– creating new words by adding prefeixes and suffixes does not reality create.
Science is fact.Period.
Scientific theory is sothing else.
If someone takes your temperature, it is. If a charlatans misunderstands, misdiagnosis and you die– the temperature is not at fault or misleading!
Science is fact? Then how can we use the word “science” in climate science ? But seriously, if you look up the definition of science it is ideally based on knowledge/truth/etc. Being a scientist, I know that the real world is much messier than these simple statements such as “Science is fact.Period.” I call climate science a pseudo science because it actually fits the definition of “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.” A true measurement of temperature trends for the world as a whole is not a simple black and white exercise and is fraught with huge potential for bias.
We actually *don’t* have to shut down any satellites. All we have to do is introduce a correction whereby the calendar year minus 2016 multiplied by 0.1 is subtracted from all the temperature data. That way, the Republicans have their headline that the Earth is returning to normal, NASA can take a bow, the scientists can go on tracking global temperature and climate, and everybody’s happy.
There’s actually a very good historical precedent for this. In 1996 Science published a seminal paper on “Disability Adjusted Life Years”, arguing that they provided an impartial mechanism for evaluating which conditions actually cause the most suffering and loss to humanity. They found that surprisingly, respiratory conditions of younger and middle aged adults were some of the highest priorities. Perhaps this was due to the mathematical formula, introduced in a small footnote in the references section, which mapped out a parabola where infant and elderly lives are counted as nearly worthless “due to the greater social importance of working adults”. DALYs are now the mainstream measure by which funding priorities and health policy are determined internationally, and there is almost no one in the world who objects to this.
>>> That way, the Republicans have their headline that the Earth is returning to normal, NASA can take a bow, the scientists can go on tracking global temperature and climate, and everybody’s happy. <<<
NOT! I want to sell you a global warming insurance policy.
a) I collect… I'm happy.
b) You pay… You riot in the streets.
This:
“is this really about some neo-Malthusian discussion about population control that we’re talking about here?”
is a fair question, mocking or not.
Do we know why the earth is warming? If you say yes and support w/ computational modeling then I say no. What was the earliest computational predictions and how far out did they go; can we validate today w/ real world data? Have any of the predictions come true yet, sincerely? A pink pony on lcd screen in the campus computer lab does not mean we will definitively see one in the field.
There was neat youtube vid on dredging effects of water level rise going around on the net — selling sand to Saudi Arabians.
However, back to the story, if NASA is the only agency to collect global data then they need to keep on… I’d think though that Elon Musk would work to fill the gap here should Trump do the dirty… further making the US gov useless. Just as it should be.
The first predictions were made by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and I imagine it was done with pen and paper. He predicted warming of 3 degrees for every doubling of the CO2 concentration.
Yes. A lot of the models have turned out to be overly conservative. Take, for example, sea level rise models.
Amen to that. The climate change deniers like to attack the models because even the best of them are as yet incapable of predicting all the effects. It’s as though it was 1800, and they rejected Newtonian gravitation because it failed to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.
In actual science, as opposed to the claims of climate change deniers, when one finds problems with a model, one develops an alternative that better explains the data. Have the climate change deniers done that? With all the billions in their corporate coffers, and the tens of thousands of scientists and programmers they employ, why have they not countered the results of the various climate models with one of their own, that not only matches the data but better predicts the long term consequences? For the simple reason that they cannot. CANNOT.
They do but people donot wanr to honor them and look at them, bcof the size involved and system is infinte for the immediate purposes, they devalue and laugh at it.
Well you caint live in a room full of smoke, that is your final answer. And it donot matter how big the room is, if you keep scooting your axx to the edge– you will eventually reach the edge and die there.
Yep ACD is real. You bet your axx on it.
Without physical models it’s next to impossible to demonstrate cause and effect. Physical models demonstrate clearly that the Earth’s climate is currently changing rapidly due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2. The source of these greenhouse gases has been shown clearly to be from the burning of fossil fuels.
Can you prove that “green house gasses” are heating the Earth? (I have a bottle of CO2… and I have some dry ice if you want to try it)
Can you prove the distance to the sun? YES Can you calculate it? YES. Can you prove that the distance between Earth and Sun is increasing? YES… Decreasing? YES.
If you stand next to your heater vent… does it feel warm to you? YES. From the other side of the room? NOPE.
You can’t deny that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is getting higher.
You shouldn’t try to deny that the level of acid in the oceans is getting higher.
So what you’re left with is a claim that the thick haze in the atmosphere that keeps getting thicker isn’t real because it affects an infrared frequency you can’t see.
>>> So what you’re left with is a claim that the thick haze in the atmosphere that keeps getting thicker isn’t real because it affects an infrared frequency you can’t see. <<<
That haze is sulfur. You must live near a volcano?
Sulfur attenuates sunlight and so it shades the earth == cooling.
Air Polution is the Answer to Global Warming.
Aerosols do cool the Earth, and are a potential geoengineering solution to global warming. There are a number of problems with that idea, of course.
“There are a number of problems with that idea, of course.”
What goes up must come down?