Pessimistic about climate

[Jlabute]

The 'no more oil' movement makes no sense in the short or long term. Reaction to this has caused companies to virtue signal and do counter-productive and counter-intuitive things. I appreciate businesses that have kept plastic straws and bags. I typically get more than a single use from these items.

The manufacturing of paper straws and paper bags put at least 3x more CO2 in to the air, use 4x as much water, and are still single use and sometimes not even a single use. Transporting these bulky items needs 7x more trucks. Plastic or paper, both can be recycled. Plastics are more hygienic and the plastic bags are easier to carry.

We are a long ways off from finding alternative vehicle tires. An industry that needs 7 billion liters of oil a year in North America. The products that require oil are tremendous. I see the UN does not want people to have home and vehicle ownership... including EVs... people better start mutating to have wings.


Climate pessimism is countered well by Steve Koonin, a physicist who was involved with climate models from the beginning. There is no climate emergency. Climate models have too many built-in assumptions regarding things we barely know anything about. Many times answering assumptions involves bias. To make climate predictions 100 years out is impossible, let alone 1 year. Four new reconstructions show the MWP was warmer than today.

Numerous new peer reviewed articles state decreased cloud albedo is the root cause of recent warming, not CO2.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/18/200 ... emissions/





I think the state of Texas shares my attitude: Dear UN - Pound Sand.

https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/statu ... wsrc%5Etfw

[foenix]

Climate pessimism is countered well by Steve Koonin, a physicist who was involved with climate models from the beginning. There is no climate emergency. Climate models have too many built-in assumptions regarding things we barely know anything about. Many times answering assumptions involves bias. To make climate predictions 100 years out is impossible, let alone 1 year. Four new reconstructions show the MWP was warmer than today.

That's the problem with "experts" from other fields thinking they are "experts" in another field of study and "Unsettled" is another example of "cherry picked" data and uses strawman arguments to push his own agenda.

I would normally ignore a book by a non-climate scientist promising “the truth about climate science that you aren’t getting elsewhere.” Such language is a red flag. But I’ve known the author of “Unsettled” since I took his quantum mechanics course as a Ph.D. student at Caltech in the 1970s. He’s smart and I like him, so I’m inclined to give his book a chance.

But smart scientists aren’t always right, and nice guys are still prone to biases – especially if they listen to the wrong people. In an apparent quest for fairness when he led a committee of the American Physical Society (one of my professional organizations) to assess its statement on climate change, he recruited three scientists to represent the 97% consensus, and three contrarians, presumably to speak for the other 3%. The lack of proportionate representation amplified the contrary opinions that he heard, and only in one direction. He completely ignored another, equally unfounded, contrary view. The position sometimes referred to as “doomism” (the belief that the worst-case is inevitable and it is too late to prevent it) was not represented.

The three contrarians had a long and well-documented history of engaging in ad hominem attacks on mainstream climate scientists and misrepresenting their work. Most of the technical mistakes and misrepresentations in “Unsettled” may simply be attributable to Koonin’s trust of those advisors and lack of rigorous independent verification.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021 ... unsettled/

A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong

Here's some examples from Koonin's book.....

- “Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900, and that the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.” (Italics in the original.) This is a questionable statement depending on the definition of “heat wave”, and so it is really uninformative. Heat waves are poor indicators of heat stress. Whether or not they are becoming more frequent, they have clearly become hotter and longer over the past few decades while populations have grown more vulnerable in large measure because they are, on average, older [Section 19.6.2.1]. Moreover, during these longer extreme heat events, it is nighttime temperatures that are increasing most. As a result, people never get relief from insufferable heat and more of them are at risk of dying.

- “The warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.” According to what measure? Highest annual global averages? Absolutely not. That the planet is has warmed since the industrial revolution is unequivocal with more than 30 percent of that warming having occurred over the last 25 years, and the hottest annual temperatures in that history have followed suit [Section SPM.1].

- “Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.” For a risk-based approach to climate discussions about what we “should do,” this statement is irrelevant. It is the future that worries us. Observations from 11 satellite missions monitoring the Arctic and Antarctic show that ice sheets are losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... dly-wrong/

As to the Greenland ice shelf melt.....

Ice core records provide critical historical context because satellite measurements—which scientists rely on today to understand melting rates in response to changing climate—have only been around since the late 1970s, said Matt Osman, a graduate student in the MIT-WHOI Joint Program and co-author of the study.

“We have had a sense that there’s been a great deal of melting in recent decades, but we previously had no basis for comparison with melt rates going further back in time,” he said. “By sampling ice, we were able to extend the satellite data by a factor of 10 and get a clearer picture of just how extremely unusual melting has been in recent decades compared to the past.”

Trusel said the new research provides evidence that the rapid melting observed in recent decades is highly unusual when put into a historical context.

https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-re ... centuries/

[foenix]

Numerous new peer reviewed articles state decreased cloud albedo is the root cause of recent warming, not CO2.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/18/200 ... emissions/

Wait, so the authors are saying that for the last decade or two the earth as a whole have had less cloud cover than before? I didn't see that in your link about if that, if I missed it, perhaps you can point that out to me because that seems intuitively wrong as global temperatures increase, shouldn't we experience more clouds from the increase in the evaporation rate due to higher temperatures?

[The Green Barbarian]

The 'no more oil' movement makes no sense in the short or long term. Reaction to this has caused companies to virtue signal and do counter-productive and counter-intuitive things. I appreciate businesses that have kept plastic straws and bags. I typically get more than a single use from these items.

The manufacturing of paper straws and paper bags put at least 3x more CO2 in to the air, use 4x as much water, and are still single use and sometimes not even a single use. Transporting these bulky items needs 7x more trucks. Plastic or paper, both can be recycled. Plastics are more hygienic and the plastic bags are easier to carry.

We are a long ways off from finding alternative vehicle tires. An industry that needs 7 billion liters of oil a year in North America. The products that require oil are tremendous. I see the UN does not want people to have home and vehicle ownership... including EVs... people better start mutating to have wings.


Climate pessimism is countered well by Steve Koonin, a physicist who was involved with climate models from the beginning. There is no climate emergency. Climate models have too many built-in assumptions regarding things we barely know anything about. Many times answering assumptions involves bias. To make climate predictions 100 years out is impossible, let alone 1 year. Four new reconstructions show the MWP was warmer than today.

Numerous new peer reviewed articles state decreased cloud albedo is the root cause of recent warming, not CO2.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/18/200 ... emissions/





I think the state of Texas shares my attitude: Dear UN - Pound Sand.

https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/statu ... wsrc%5Etfw

Thanks for posting that. The more people awaken to just how much they've been conned by this horrible hoax the more that the bad economics of these fools will be exposed, but unfortunately it may take thousands of people dying in Europe this winter to really wake people up to how dangerous and evil these man-made climate change scum truly are. It seems that's what it takes now, and for the truly brain-washed, even death may not be enough.

It's time for people to stop being distracted by this vaccination nonsense and realize that behind the scenes the man-made climate change fraud has been continuing to move ahead with many dangerous and truly evil initiatives, all designed to achieve one main goal - mass human suffering.

[The Green Barbarian]

LOL - Oil giants deny "spreading disinformation" on Apocalyptic Fairy Tales...

Oil giants deny spreading disinformation on climate change (lol lol lol)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Top executives of ExxonMobil and other oil giants denied spreading disinformation about climate change as they sparred Thursday with congressional Democrats over allegations that the industry concealed evidence about the dangers of global warming.

Testifying at a landmark House hearing, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said the company “has long acknowledged the reality and risks of climate change, and it has devoted significant resources to addressing those risks.″

The oil giant’s public statements on climate “are and have always been truthful, fact-based ... and consistent” with mainstream climate science, Woods said.

Democrats immediately challenged the statements by Woods and other oil executives, accusing them of engaging in a decades-long, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming.

“They are obviously lying like the tobacco executives were,'' said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee.

She was referring to a 1994 hearing with tobacco executives who famously testified that they didn’t believe nicotine was addictive. The reference was one of several to the tobacco hearing as Democrats sought to pin down oil executives on whether they believe in climate change and that burning fossil fuels such as oil contributes to global warming.

Maloney said at the end of the nearly seven-hour hearing that she will issue subpoenas for documents requested by the committee but not furnished by the oil companies.

Republicans accused Democrats of grandstanding over an issue popular with their base as President Joe Biden’s climate agenda teeters in Congress.

Kentucky Rep. James Comer, the top Republican on the oversight panel, called the hearing a “distraction from the crises that the Biden administration’s policies have caused," including gasoline prices that have risen by $1 per gallon since January.

“The purpose of this hearing is clear: to deliver partisan theater for primetime news,″ Comer said.

The hearing comes after months of public efforts by Democrats to obtain documents and other information on the oil industry’s role in stopping climate action over multiple decades. The fossil fuel industry has had scientific evidence about the dangers of climate change since at least 1977, yet spread denial and doubt about the harm its products cause— undermining science and preventing meaningful action on climate change, Maloney and other Democrats said.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... d=msedgntp

[hobbyguy]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... ft-behind/

"Accelerating international climate action, investors awakening to climate risks and rapid technological change are combining in ways that will shift trade patterns and upend markets. Canada has a choice: Lead, follow or be left behind.

A future with significantly lower global demand for coal, oil and gasoline-powered vehicles is now inevitable, regardless of current price volatility. More than 60 countries and counting have committed to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century. These countries represent over 70 per cent of global GDP, over 70 per cent of global oil demand and over 55 per cent of natural gas demand.

Even if countries fail to hit net zero targets, their efforts will still have profound impacts on global markets."

Those who choose o cherry pick contrarian "studies" and junk science to justify sticking their heads in the sand should be aware that there is no upside to that position. Like it or not, take the reflexive contrarian position or not, countries and people that do not recognize where the world is going economically will wind up in the same round file as the Luddites.

This is where the world is going, so all the contrarian argumentativeness in the world ain't gonna do nuttin'.

Eventually the notion of "carbon tariffs" - which even O'Toole has touted in a weird context - could be a possibility.

So its either "get with the program" or face severe economic consequences - both as a country and for the individual within that country.

[The Green Barbarian]

This is where the world is going, so all the contrarian argumentativeness in the world ain't gonna do nuttin'.

Eventually the notion of "carbon tariffs" - which even O'Toole has touted in a weird context - could be a possibility.

So its either "get with the program" or face severe economic consequences - both as a country and for the individual within that country.

Thank you Hobbyguy for drawing our attention to the spread of enviro-fascism, very enlightening indeed. Essentially, join with us in pushing this fairy tale or your will be exterminated. No different than the Nazis and their final solution. I hope that just like World War 2, the free world wakes up to this threat, and defeats it before it spreads too far and too many people are killed by this horrible ideology. Keep up the great work reporting on this, and thanks for joining the good fight against these enviro-scum!

Speaking of incredibly stupid decisions being made in the name of magic and apocalyptic fairy tales, we are in the process of changing out our old natural gas furnace for a new natural gas furnace, which comes with all the new technology that our old one doesn't, so it should hopefully reduce our costs.

When speaking to the sales guy/installer from the furnace company, when he heard that we were going with a new natural gas furnace, he just said "oh, good, you're not one of those people", and I said "What?" And then he told me that he's been going around Kelowna for the past two years, ripping out perfectly good natural gas furnaces from peoples' houses, and installing electric furnaces at their request. These gullible idiots are then asked to sign waivers because they don't understand the massive differential in the cost to heat their homes and so the furnace companies want them to acknowledge their responsibility and that they have been warned that they are now in for a giant world of hurt financially from such a dumb decision.

So here we have families deliberately increasing their personal annual expenditures by potentially thousands of dollars a year, all in the name of a fairy tale, just so that they can experience a "warm tummy" that they are "doing something" about a "problem" that doesn't exist. It just boggles the mind. What possible difference could your natural gas furnace vs electric be doing to help anybody, even if man-made climate change wasn't a giant hoax? Why would you willingly do something so freaking stupid and financially hamstring yourself for no possible good reason. This guy couldn't understand it himself. No one can.

But it's no wonder governments think that they can take away rights and freedoms, all in the name of something that doesn't exist, because the sheep are already trained and ready for slaughter.

[The Green Barbarian]

Five more arrested in Vancouver for pushing the enviro-fascism agenda. You have to wonder reading this - are these people just useful idiots being used by the man-made climate change fanatics, or are they truly evil like their handlers? It does bear thinking about.

Five more climate activists arrested in Vancouver on final day of 'October Rebellion'

Five more climate activists were arrested Friday as they wrapped up a two-week mass civil disobedience campaign in Vancouver to demand government take more action to address the climate crisis.

The action comes as delegates from around the world meet Sunday at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 26) in Glasgow, where members of the group Extinction Rebellion are planning high impact “deliberate disruption, according to the BBC.

Three men and two women were arrested after refusing to leave the intersection at Burrard and Pacific and blocking traffic for several hours, said Vancouver police spokesman Sgt. Steve Addison on Saturday.

Extinction Rebellion, the climate activist group that has been staging the series of protests, says three of its members locked themselves to a block structure early Friday evening. The block was covered in chicken wire and blue tarps, painted to represent Earth.

The group alleges police were “rough” with the protesters when removing them from the intersection.

Addison said three protesters had locked themselves together using some sort of device, but they freed themselves after the Vancouver Fire Rescue Services arrived to cut them out.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/f ... d=msedgntp

[hobbyguy]

This is where the world is going, so all the contrarian argumentativeness in the world ain't gonna do nuttin'.

Eventually the notion of "carbon tariffs" - which even O'Toole has touted in a weird context - could be a possibility.

So its either "get with the program" or face severe economic consequences - both as a country and for the individual within that country.

Thank you Hobbyguy for drawing our attention to the spread of enviro-fascism, very enlightening indeed. Essentially, join with us in pushing this fairy tale or your will be exterminated. No different than the Nazis and their final solution. I hope that just like World War 2, the free world wakes up to this threat, and defeats it before it spreads too far and too many people are killed by this horrible ideology. Keep up the great work reporting on this, and thanks for joining the good fight against these enviro-scum!

Speaking of incredibly stupid decisions being made in the name of magic and apocalyptic fairy tales, we are in the process of changing out our old natural gas furnace for a new natural gas furnace, which comes with all the new technology that our old one doesn't, so it should hopefully reduce our costs.

When speaking to the sales guy/installer from the furnace company, when he heard that we were going with a new natural gas furnace, he just said "oh, good, you're not one of those people", and I said "What?" And then he told me that he's been going around Kelowna for the past two years, ripping out perfectly good natural gas furnaces from peoples' houses, and installing electric furnaces at their request. These gullible idiots are then asked to sign waivers because they don't understand the massive differential in the cost to heat their homes and so the furnace companies want them to acknowledge their responsibility and that they have been warned that they are now in for a giant world of hurt financially from such a dumb decision.

So here we have families deliberately increasing their personal annual expenditures by potentially thousands of dollars a year, all in the name of a fairy tale, just so that they can experience a "warm tummy" that they are "doing something" about a "problem" that doesn't exist. It just boggles the mind. What possible difference could your natural gas furnace vs electric be doing to help anybody, even if man-made climate change wasn't a giant hoax? Why would you willingly do something so freaking stupid and financially hamstring yourself for no possible good reason. This guy couldn't understand it himself. No one can.

But it's no wonder governments think that they can take away rights and freedoms, all in the name of something that doesn't exist, because the sheep are already trained and ready for slaughter.

None of what you say matters. The changes are a comin'. You either get with program, or get left behind.

I do, however, agree with you about natural gas furnaces. We have the NG infrastructure and it is much lower cost than electricity - which we do not have enough to replace natural gas. Down the road natural gas will go up in price with carbon taxes, but some of that may be offset by adding a mix of hydrogen, which would lower the GHGs somewhat and be competitive with natural gas. Plus any of us who have been through a prolonged winter electricity outage will appreciate the value of a high efficiency gas fireplace and cooktop.

[The Green Barbarian]

None of what you say matters. The changes are a comin'. You either get with program, or get left behind.

This weirdly sounds like what the National Socialists told the Jews on the eve of Kristallnacht. And though there were a lot of Germans who disagreed with how the Jews were treated, they had to "get with the program", or suffer the same fate as their Jewish brethren. When I see statements like this, such binary foolishness and stupidity in action, all in the name of a fairy tale, it just reminds me so much of the manufactured hate that the Jews were subjected to in Europe and other parts of the world.

Just unthinking, blind horrible group-think, all in the name of a lie. And just like the National Socialists, the man-made climate change fascists aren't going to stop until hundreds of millions are dead. It's as plain as day.

Down the road natural gas will go up in price with carbon taxes, but some of that may be offset by adding a mix of hydrogen, which would lower the GHGs somewhat and be competitive with natural gas.

So it's obvious to anyone with a brain, that carbon taxes on natural gas is just plain stupid. Natural gas causes zero environmental damage. Even if you think "GHG's" are a thing, (they aren't) then you have to support natural gas. To rip out your natural gas furnace and willingly accept thousands of dollars in extra expense, all in the name of some Harry Potter-esque fantasy is just lunacy. No one should be ripping out their natural gas furnaces. Quite the opposite, they should be swapping out their electric furnaces for natural gas, and being paid a big subsidy to do it. Get as much heat off of our grid as possible, as it can't sustain what we have now, especially with the same gullible fools going out and buying electric cars.

I was talking to a friend in Victoria and he is livid - their taxes keep going up and yet their infrastructure is suffering as no road work is being done - all the extra funds from taxes are being funneled in to "electrifying" the entire government auto fleet. Such a massive waste of money, such a stupid waste of resources, once again, all in the name of fighting this "Voldemort" fantasy land. It's just sickening to see such huge amounts of capital totally wasted by brain-dead governments on fairy tales. Just such garbage.

[hobbyguy]

No, natural gas does cause environmental harms - just not as much as oil and quite a bit less than coal.

It becomes a matter of pragmatism. Electric heat is unaffordable for many folks, and we don't have enough electricity. In transition, yup, move away from natural gas for new builds where it can be done in conjunction with other building improvements to reduce the energy need. But you ain't gonna suddenly switch out.

The issue is especially problematic in colder parts of the country. Fine if you live in Vancouver or Victoria you can get away with air source heat pump technology. But once you get to -10C and below - nope, you have to have a back up source.

The whole natural gas thing is context driven. What you can do in California around heating is a whole bunch different if you live in Edmonton.

[The Green Barbarian]

No, natural gas does cause environmental harms - just not as much as oil and quite a bit less than coal.

No, it doesn't cause any environmental harm. It's a clean-burning fuel that has zero particulates. So it is the most amazing and cheap fuel source we could ever want, and it's clean-burning with zero environmental impact. It's awesome!

[Jlabute]

Numerous new peer reviewed articles state decreased cloud albedo is the root cause of recent warming, not CO2.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/18/200 ... emissions/

Wait, so the authors are saying that for the last decade or two the earth as a whole have had less cloud cover than before? I didn't see that in your link about if that, if I missed it, perhaps you can point that out to me because that seems intuitively wrong as global temperatures increase, shouldn't we experience more clouds from the increase in the evaporation rate due to higher temperatures?

Not sure why a slightly warmer earth would have more clouds. This is an assumption by some and it is not obvious in a complex, chaotic system. If true cloud cover would perfectly regulate temperature. There are many factors that control planet temperature, and cloud cover. Varying cloud cover a tiny amount would be all that is needed to change average global temperature. It could be done by ocean currents, or cosmic rays, or all the above. The sun when active shields the earth from charged cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, minimums or grand minimums, the earth gets more cosmic rays. Periods of grand minimums have been significantly cooler. Such charged particles either directly seed the formation of clouds, or indirectly through the formation of aerosols. I would suggest the science is more complex than what john cook suggests. Cosmic rays are currently intensifying as we approach a grand minimum. We will see what happens. Right now we believe climate causes clouds, instead of clouds causing climate which can be true.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 113235.htm

https://notrickszone.com/2017/03/23/rus ... o-climate/

You can build your own cosmic ray cloud chamber.




Snowball earth would had been caused in a similar way.
http://polaris.nipr.ac.jp/~ryuho/pub0/K ... lEarth.pdf

[Jlabute]

So its either "get with the program" or face severe economic consequences - both as a country and for the individual within that country.

Yet at the same time, China and Russia are not showing up at COP26 and many countries including India show a lack of commitment to financial suicide. There is no evidence CO2 levels do anything other than provide India with their best crops ever for this last year. The near future will prove these non-scientific model scams worthless.

[fluffy]

It's been going on fifty years now that science has been warning us that we were doing it wrong. Now I notice that the discussion is changing from reversing the effects of climate change to how can we live with it.