by Judith Curry
. . . according to the cover story of April 26 issue of Time Magazine. How have we have fooled ourselves into thinking that manmade climate change is the dominant cause of societal problems?
Some excerpts from the Time Magazine article:
<begin quote>
From her perch in the West Wing, McCarthy has been charged by Biden with overseeing a dramatic shift in the way the U.S. pursues action on climate change. Instead of turning to a select few environment-focused agencies to make climate policy, McCarthy and her office are working to infuse climate considerations into everything the Administration does. The task force she runs includes everyone from the Secretary of Defense, who is evaluating the climate threat to national security, to the Treasury Secretary, who is working to stem the risk that climate change poses to the financial system.
For decades, the idea that climate change touches everything has grown behind the scenes. Leaders from small island countries have pleaded with the rest of the world to notice how climate change has begun to uproot their lives, in areas from health care to schooling. Social scientists have crunched the data, illuminating how climate change will ripple across society, contributing to a surge in migration, reduced productivity and a spike in crime. And advocates and thinkers have proposed everything from a conscious move to economic degrowth to eco-capitalism to make climate the government’s driving force.
Now, spurred by alarming science, growing public fury and a deadly pandemic, government officials, corporate bosses and civil-society leaders are finally waking up to a simple idea whose time has come: climate is everything. It’s out of this recognition that the E.U. has allocated hundreds of billions of euros to put climate at the center of its economic plans, seemingly unrelated activist groups have embraced environmental goals, and investors have flooded firms advancing the energy transition with trillions of dollars. “The world is crossing the long-awaited political tipping point on climate right now,” says Al Gore, a former U.S. Vice President who won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his climate activism. “We are seeing the beginning of a new era.”
The course of climatization—the process by which climate change will transform society—will play out in the coming years in every corner of society. Whether it leads to a more resilient world or exacerbates the worst elements of our society depends on whether we adjust or just stumble through. “We are at the point where climate change means systems change—and almost every system will change,” says Rachel Kyte, dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University and a longtime climate leader. “That understanding is long overdue, but I don’t think we know exactly what it means yet. It’s a moment of maximum hope; it’s also a moment of high risk.”
<end quote>
How climate became ‘everything’
A changing climate has been the norm throughout the Earth’s 4.6 billion year history. The Earth’s temperature and weather patterns change naturally over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years. Natural variations in climate originate in two ways. Internal climate fluctuations exchange energy, water and carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, land and ice, which changes the surface climate. External influences on the climate system include variations in the energy received from the sun and the effects of volcanic eruptions. Human activities also influence climate by changing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, altering the concentrations of aerosol particles in the atmosphere, and through land use and changing land cover.
Over the past several decades, the definition of ‘climate change’ has shifted away from the broader geological interpretation. Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines ‘climate change’ as:
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, versus climate variability attributable to natural causes. This redefinition of ‘climate change’ to refer only to manmade climate change has effectively eliminated natural climate change from the public discussion on climate change. Any change that is observed over the past century, on whatever time scale, is implicitly assumed to be manmade. This assumption leads to connecting every unusual weather or climate event to manmade climate change from fossil fuel emissions.
The UNFCCC definition of ‘climate change’ engenders two logical fallacies. The fallacy of the single cause occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome, when in reality it may have been caused by a number of jointly sufficient causes. Climate variability and change are influenced both by natural climate processes and human activity. A jingle fallacy is based on the assumption that two things that are called by the same name capture the same construct. ‘Climate change’ under the UNFCCC definition is a much narrower construct than climate change in the geological sense. Use of the term becomes a jingle fallacy when it is inferred that all climate change – recent and future – is manmade.
The ubiquitous jingle fallacy surrounding the UNFCC definition of climate change introduces a framing bias. Framesact as organizing principles that shape how people conceptualize an issue. Frames can direct how a problem is stated, what is excluded from consideration, what questions are relevant, and what answers might be appropriate. A framing bias occurs when a narrow approach is employed that pre-ordains the conclusion to a much more complex problem. The narrow framing of climate change as manmade global warming has marginalized natural climate variability. This narrow framing also dominates our understanding of the relationships of humans and society with climate. An assumption is made that future climate change is controlled by the amount of manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Regional causes of climate variability, their impacts and their local solutions are marginalized by the assumption that the causes of climate change and its solution are irreducibly global.
The term ‘climate change’ doesn’t just connote the science of manmade global warming, but also an entire worldview of society. Hulme (2010) identifies the fallacy of climate reductionism, a form of analysis and prediction in which the interdependencies that shape human life within the physical world are correlated with climate change. Manmade climate change is then elevated to the role of the dominant predictor of societal change. Multiple possibilities of the future are effectively closed off as climate predictions assert their influence over food production, health, tourism and recreation, human migration, violent conflict, etc. Other environmental, economic and social factors that influence these societal problems become marginalized.
An availability cascade is a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation that triggers a self-perpetuating chain reaction: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and greater alarm. Because slowly increasing temperatures do not seem alarming, ‘availability entrepreneurs’ push extreme weather events, public health problems, human migration, etc. as being caused by manmade global warming – more of which is in store if we don’t quickly act to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
The ever-expanding narrative of climate change entrains a range of social values into the proposed solutions. The momentum of the climate change narrative leads to claims that there is a solution to many other societal problems within the climate change cause – an example is social justice in the context of the U.S. Green New Deal. This link acts to energize both causes, and leverages the climate change narrative to blame or attack those opposed to the separate cause.
Climate change has thus become a grand narrative in which human-caused climate change has become a dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong then reinforces the conviction that that there is only one thing we can do prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative misleads us to think that if we solve the problem of manmade climate change, then these other problems would also be solved. This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these problems. The end result is narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, weather disasters and national security.
And so, climate becomes everything.
Pingback: Climate is everything - HootNeoos
Rush Limbaugh said this about man-made climate change, “It’s just a political movement that is disguised as science” … and looks like China is very aware of this … https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/kf3DIEm
I’ve seen extreme changes from day to day, 3 days ago it was sunny and +16C, and then 2 days ago it snowed and stayed on the ground until noon. I see these type of changes more and more, eg today it was sunny and tomorrow it is supposed to rain.
The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change,’ Uncertainty in weather and climate prediction
Give the man a cigar.
Same as it ever was … same as it ever was …
sigh…
Robert
Lorenz is just one of many attractors. There’s the related Roessler attractor. Then chaotic attractors when high dimensional turbulence prevails. Dimensionality is the real issue as we’ve discussed before; what can bring it down from turbulence to the lower dimensional regime of emergent pattern.
I saw changes like that 30 years ago in winter 1990. I was working in a ski resort in the Swiss Alps. 10th February it was +23C at 1600m above sea-level – temperatures associated with mid to late May, not February.
Within 24hrs, temperatures at 1274m above sea level had dropped to -1C and it precipitated continuously for a week, two of the five days being rain at lower levels, causing landslides. Two weeks later, winds of 246km/hr were recorded at 3600m, trees were brought down cutting off all railway communications and the ice rink had to be cleared to ensure the safety of children.
Of course, this was not run across the front pages of every UK newspaper, nor was it breathless news on the BBC.
What has changed is not climate variability, it is the levels of media scaremongering.
Climate change fear is one of the weapons of the Malthusian movement which started at the end of the 1960s with the Club of Rome apocalyptic predictions.
A myopic vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals. But what’s the real story?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZGtzvOHzRA&t=6s
Iriai is a Japanese word meaning to enter into the joint use of resources. There are ways to a bright future for the planet, its peoples and its wild places – but these need to be consciously designed and built and common ground in a broad context of economics and democracy, population, development, technical innovation, land use and the environment. There is a stark choice in which narratives of catastrophe and economic, environmental and social collapse have no place. Which future is for you and your children? Economic collapse, civil strife, war – or prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes?
…and built on common ground…
Robert should try eating more venison, and smoking better cigars than Rush Limbaugh. for that matter , so should his one time science adviser, Roy Spencer
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-next-big-thing-in-existential.html
Where’s the beef, Russell?
In CO2-eq.
https://data.pbl.nl/api/embed/infographic/data/en/ahox18/0024_002g/01/0024_002g_ahox18_01_en.png
70 billion land animals slaughtered per year.
https://data.pbl.nl/api/embed/infographic/data/en/ahox18/0024_002g/01/0024_002g_ahox18_01_en.png
We should mob graze and only eat beef. Given the over use of nitrogen fertiliser on crops and resultant nitrous oxide (with 310 times the GWP of CO2) emissions.
Ah…. https://faunalytics.org/global-animal-slaughter-statistics-and-charts/
What good is global warming if it can’t be used to reset society. Absolutely nothing. Whoa, whoa, whoa, yeah – (What is it good for?) – Alright, yeah
No one claimed that the low dimensional state space of Lorenz is equivalent to the high dimensional state space of the spatiotemporal chaos of the Earth system.
‘The biggest difficulty comes from the fact that we lost this convenient finite dimensional phase space. That’s why almost nothing transports from temporal chaos to spatio-temporal chaos. There are no attractors, bifurcations and such. The whole mathematical apparatus has to be invented from scratch and it will take decades. To know the state of the system, we must know all the fields at all points – this is an uncountable infinity of dimensions.’ Tomas Milanovic – https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/
As a practical hydrologist – what we need to know is the behaviour of the system. As we have discussed previously.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/koutsdoyianis-fig-7-.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/koutsoyiannis-fig-9-.png
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626
I’ve looked at the past six decades of temperatures and find a very strong correlation to higher temperatures with black political activism starting in the 1960s. It’s scientific. It’s settled.
“Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.
Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.” NAS 2002
Should this not be considered a scientific truth and rational policies formulated? It does not appear technically to be all that difficult.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/05/09/economics-environment-and-energy/
Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps.
Human beings migrated to every climate on earth.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Early_migrations_mercator.svg/1920px-Early_migrations_mercator.svg.png
As such, past humans willingly induced much more significant climate change on themselves than the recent change in global mean temperature.
And they prospered and advanced because of it.
Fortunately, they were not cowards.
Supposedly, Neanderthals had the largest brains and hominid brains have been shrinking ever since. Global civilization obsessed with climate change is unfortunately consistent with this decline.
“From here the species embarked on a slow upward march, reaching more than 1,000 ml by 500,000 years ago. Early Homo sapiens had brains within the range of people today, averaging 1,200 ml or more. As our cultural and linguistic complexity, dietary needs and technological prowess took a significant leap forward at this stage, our brains grew to accommodate the changes. The shape changes we see accentuate the regions related to depth of planning, communication, problem solving and other more advanced cognitive functions.
With some evolutionary irony, the past 10,000 years of human existence actually shrank our brains. Limited nutrition in agricultural populations may have been an important driver of this trend. Industrial societies in the past 100 years, however, have seen brain size rebound, as childhood nutrition increased and disease declined. Although the past does not predict future evolution, a greater integration with technology and genetic engineering may catapult the human brain into the unknown.” How Has the Human Brain Evolved?
“The simulated population size declined from about 330,000 people at 30 ky ago to a minimum of 130,000 people at 23 ky ago. The Late Glacial population growth was fastest during Greenland interstadial 1, and by 13 ky ago, there were almost 410,000 people in Europe. Even during the coldest part of the LGM, the climatically suitable area for human habitation remained unfragmented and covered 36% of Europe.” https://www.pnas.org/content/112/27/8232
A quick google search suggests that such conditions might be problematic on a planet with 8 billion people. My quote from the NAS simply says that this is the way the Earth system works. Do you dispute that it is a scientific truth?
The picture of human dispersal from its beginnings in Africa is nice, but faulty. It is based on today’s geography. The Mediterranean is a critical point, and its geography has changed substantially from the end of the YD. And changed abruptly, and more than once.
Also linked to that is that the also abrupt thermal changes, in such short times, could not have happened through the agency of vapour phase changes transferring heat around the globe, but more likely from direct insolation.
The picture of human dispersal from its beginnings in Africa is nice, but faulty. It is based on today’s geography.
People have always depended on water and lived close to the edge of oceans, lakes, rivers, etc. In the warmest times the oceans were deeper and in coldest times the oceans were lower, the best places for people to thrive, changed with changes in where water was available. Actually Geography including warm enough and cool enough.
Q: “The picture of human dispersal from its beginnings in Africa is nice, but faulty. It is based on today’s geography.”
Q ” In the warmest times the oceans were deeper and in coldest times the oceans were lower,”
It is not only a question of ocean level due to cold or warm times (to be seen in the context of the Meltwater Pulse). But also due to large land submergence in the Central Med (geological not water level rise). Evidence of ‘Listric’ collapse towards the Malta Escarpment and the development of grabens in the western Med. Evidenced by man-made ancient cart tracks ending in mid-air both at coast line and inland valleys (and religiously avoided by science). The Sahara dried abruptly at ~3550bce. That climatic change was not restricted to the Sahara. The Med was much different than today, in many respects; area, shape, depth, island size and number and orientation. Today’s islands are remnants of a relatively recent past.
Those changes were not restricted to the Med. There is evidence elsewhere, but the ‘man-made’ evidence is not as definite as that in the Med. (It has been brought to my notice because the date is same)
TE
So it’s wurs than we fort’
Cloimutt gon an shrunckd our brains 🧠
“startling speed”
A cherry picked example of startling speed is the UAH satellite T for the lower troposphere over Australia, with anomalies cooling from +1.28C in Nov 2020 to -0.79 G in March 2021. a fall of just over 2C in 5 months, which extrapolates to 4.8C a year or 48C a decade. (It is only “startling” within ones subjective beliefs about how fast is fast.)
We think these figures, treated this way, are nonsense. However, this framework of treatment has become almost standard in climate research. Same logic paths, only different time and temperature intervals. It leads to statements that such a change is greater and/or faster than happened in pre-CO2 pollution times.
…………………..
A broader question is, what greenhouse mechanism explains the global fall in UAH lower trop temps of over 0.4C in the last 6 months? Is this explained by noise overlain on a steady rise caused by CO2, or is the CO2 theory wrong, or is the cause whatever else readers suggest like ocean cycles? We are still arguing questions like this after 40 years of expensive research, money largely wasted, it seems.
Geoff S
The answer to the first question is largely seasons and ENSO.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/ghil.png
The answer to the second question is something real.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ghil-e1519934086457.png
Like Bill Gray said at a Climate Conference, several years ago: If CO2 causes any warming, more evaporation and precipitation will counter it.
What to do?
Better understand the system and its forcing.
Better understand the system and the system’s internal responses.
Especially, better understand the longer, never ending, alternating warm and cold periods.
It always got colder after more ice accumulation in warmer times.
Then it “always” got warmer after less ice accumulation in colder times.
True for before, during and after little or great ice ages. Go figure!
Climate warmed as it came out of the little ice age when it snowed less on Greenland, now we are warmer, the Arctic is more open, it is snowing more on Greenland now, it will get colder when more Greenland ice is dumped into the Warm Tropical Gulf Stream.
These facts are easy to read in the Greenland ice core records.
Do you dispute that it is a scientific truth?
Is there such a thing as scientific truth?
Science appears to be concerned with testing and observations while scientism appears to be interested in proclaiming a truth to justify marching orders. The NAS statement, no doubt subject to a committee, was necessarily a political product.
The problem with chaotic fluctuation as a global warming boogie man is that chaotic fluctuation occurs with or without global temperature change. So were humans capable of changing global average temperature, one wouldn’t know whether more chaos would be invoked by reducing T, maintaining T, or increasing T. In spite of that, on a hemispheric basis, summer climate appears to be more stable than winter climate. An imperfect analog might be increased stability with warming.
You do not make decisions based on global average annual temperature.
You do not even make decisions based on your local average annual temperature. To be sure, global average annual temperature has risen, quite consistently with the concept of radiative forcing. But just because something is measurable doesn’t make it significant.
The exaggeration of climate change beyond the change in GMST is what constitutes falsity.
It’s an old paper, but it’s by the godfather of climate change.
In https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm8001.pdf,
modeled precip/evap response to a quadrupling of CO2 looks like(fig 24):
https://climatewatcher.webs.com/ManabePrecipEvap.png
The changes appear quite marginal. Professor Manabe has suggested that increased warming would dry the subtropics, but also notes that precipitation, soil moisture and other hydrological variables are not sufficient to test such a suggestion. Further, such a scenario depends on dynamics. The sub-tropics would be more humid, but that humidity would be transported, without precipitation, to affect such a result.
In any event, actual climate change resulting from global warming, appears to be something quite different from ‘scientific truth’.
“In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.” Isaac Newton, 4th rule for natural philosophy
The NAS report was written by a bevy of illustrious climate scientists almost 20 years ago now. Well before that Harold Hurst analysed nearly a 1000 years of Nile River data discovering the Noah and Joseph effects. The Noah Effect is the observation that extreme precipitation can be very extreme indeed. By Joseph Effect the finding that long periods of unusual high or low precipitation can be extremely long. The data – and hundreds of other geoseries analysed since – show regimes and abrupt transitions that are diagnostic of deterministic chaos.
‘What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause.’ https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3#14
‘Essentially, this behaviour manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.’ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626
So how should we respond given change and uncertainty?
‘The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.’ op. cit.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2021/05/01/capability-browns-oblique-approach-to-climate-policy/
Just on energy access. I have been investigating Joe Biden’s policies. One thing struck me was a willingness to make energy access more difficult for the developing world by throwing US weight around at the World Bank. And to threaten China with trade sanctions at the WTO if they build natural gas or HELE coal plants in poorer nations. This is both fundamentally immoral and more calculated to drive ASEAN and Africa into the Chinese camp.
It looks as though you still haven’t fixed the typo in your first paragraph Robert?
To put this more simple:
The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet,
Climate change is natural, normal, necessary, self-correcting, unstoppable, and it is understandable.
OK, put some effort into understanding the changes of the past.
When Jim gets into one of his moods it is best to ignore him.
Robert wrote:
The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.” NAS 2002
OK, put some effort into understanding the changes of the past.
We have much more data now than when climate consensus was formed. The simple idea that going from just under 300 to over 400 PPM molecules of CO2 is the only factor that caused warming since we started using fossil fuels is adding one black marble to three other black marbles in a pile of ten thousand other colored marbles. That is like changing the path of a battle ship by adding one more sailor.
We kill the economy of the western world while china burns more coal to give energy to their people and then burns much more coal to build the windmills and solar panels and batteries for the western world. Every coal plant we shut down requires multiple coal power plants in China to build the stuff we use to try to provide us power. We already have a power grid in Texas that we could not protect from a few days of cold weather. Now they want a nationwide grid so that the whole country can lose power at the same time, much like has happened in the whole northwest US a few years ago and more often in more places every year.
Look at the huge increase in emissions from China that has facilitated our small decrease already. China has added huge amounts of hydro power as well as huge amounts of coal power, their economy is booming, at Western Countries expense. They are building their military while the Western World is destroying our military. The world will be China’s, with or without a war. They, or some small radical group, will be able to shut our interconnected grid down with an EMF attack or a simple Hacker attack. A complicated interconnected grid cannot work without the information network.
We need Fossil and/or Nuclear power in each region so each region can be independently powered during emergencies, otherwise we can lose the whole country at the same time. No one will even be able to help their neighbor because of the riots and looting people will be encouraged to do.
The UNFCCC is some kind of authority on climate science? That claim alone destroys the credibility of the article.
The single factor fallacy is an attractive oversimplification because it leads to a binary policy choice, infused with a moral choice between good and evil. Green = good, save our planet; carbon pollution = evil, destroy our planet. No more thinking or information is required.
This apocalyptic cult is an updated religion in a secular age. The apocalyptic fear is at least as old as the biblical story of Noah’s ark: all the evildoer humans were drowned in the great flood, except the virtuous Noah.
It is an embarrassment to see a sophisticated government like that of the US in 2021 do this to its citizens. One can only hope that as the societal costs of these misguided policies begin to cause the inevitable impoverishment the voting public begins to understand that the apocalyptic climate theology is a false religion, and stops following it.
Yes, you nailed it Andrew.
Well put Mr. Roman. I will copy your comment and paste it into a note to my good friends who are terrified Armageddon is upon us within the coming decade, “unless we act now”, They are otherwise stand up fellows, multiple graduate degrees and all.
Panic is available to anyone regardless of their education.
‘One can only hope that as the societal costs of these misguided policies begin to cause the inevitable impoverishment the voting public begins to understand that the apocalyptic climate theology is a false religion, and stops following it.’ Excellent comment Andrew Roman.
There will be Churches of Climate Change in every centre of population where pastors can pass a collection plate around the nouveau riche believers and followers of the Great Gore in the Sky. Meanwhile the poor, both young and old, the cold, the.diseased and the hungry will beg for just a tiny bit more consideration and freedom from pain,suffering and hunger and be just as unheard and ignored as ever before. We just do not seem to ever learn from our rich and treasured histories.
“An informed populace is essential to Liberty” Thomas Jefferson. “If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you are misinformed” Mark Twain.
I fear that our liberty is at stake because far too many in our populace are truly ignorant due to laziness, educational indoctrination, and a corrupt, dishonest media. There is no clearer evidence of this than that people actually believe we can replace fossil fuels with unreliables and that we can do it by 2050 or sooner. This is truly fantasy land. It will take some form of total grid collapse or other catastrophe directly caused by over reliance on unreliables where the fault can’t be shifted to fossil fuels by a dishonest media. Even that will not convince many true believers, but it may be necessary to wake up those not paying attention. Texas should have alerted people to the problem, but the media shifted the blame to natural gas failures and gave wind a pass.
Not sure what a sophisticated government is, but the more government we get the less freedom we have. “Voting smarter” will never change the fact that power always corrupts. There are no philosopher kings or benevolent rulers. When people come to realize that government is the most dangerous false religion, they will abandon it and its many doctrines in its many forms. Those who love their liberty must stop supporting tyrannical systems. Then, those who peddle AGW and other frightening fantasies will lack the power to inflict their catastrophies.
The left wing charade to use AGW theory to rally support for global socialism is in high gear, with corporate CEO’s, Hollywood celebrities, the entire Democratic Party of the U.S. and Liberal Party of Canada signing on and spouting AGW gibberish in an endless parade of propaganda. None of them pay the slightest attention to the laws of physics in their zeal to seize power. Ultimately they will have to choose between “racism” and “climate change” as their rallying cry, although they are already trying to merge these inane theories by claiming that “climate change” has racist roots. Time for human beings that still have independent minds to stand up and be counted.
I am left-wing. I would describe myself as a liberal and a socialist in my politics – (practically the anti-christ by US standards I know, but I am pretty middle of the road for the UK). I don’t adhere to any so-called “left-wing” charade of AGW to rally support for anything. Characterising AGW in political terms is to miss the point, and defining it as left or right wing is what entrenches bias and ignorance…ie AGW is a hoax vs coming to steal your children.
AGW is a scientific question, and what to do about it is political. The AGW question is not answered, well it certainly looks like it is massively over-stated (itself an understatement) so focus on that. Most people I know of the same political mind-set simply believe in “do no harm” and “compassion” and whatever flows on from that politically is what we support. I recognise that extreme views on either side of political spectrum can hijack a cause, but that doesn’t make the cause or issue less valid or important.
I tell people who are of the same political view as myself; “if you want to protect the environment, fight poverty.” People lower down on Maslow’s pyramid of needs are trying to make it from one day to the next, they don’t have energy or resources for future well being. They have poorer health outcomes, lower quality of life, shorter lives, and worse education. If AGW really were as big a problem as it is advertised, then of course we should do all we can to mitigate. But it isn’t, and at best the picture is mixed, so wasting our time worrying about trivialities at the expense of the real issues is failing society and the most vulnerable.
My view, separate the scientific question of whether it’s happening from what to do about it. All that happens when you trash talk “the left” is you get dismissed as a “denier”, and the bias deepens.
Large numbers of people, particularly in the US, interpret the scientific evidence by filtering it’s through their ideological orientation. That you might be an exception to that pattern doesn’t reduce its ubiquity.
AGW is pseudoscience supporting corruption in government energy policy. I know AGW is fake because most of the AGW is supposed to be caused by extra water vapor, WV, from the more humid atmosphere, itself caused by more CO2. So the experimental test is simple. Q: Does a more humid atmosphere cause surface temperatures to rise?
A: No. The opposite. For example. Arid regions in China were irrigated. Naturally, this increased humidity. Daytime temperatures fell by over 6K. So all the left-wing gibberish about climate crisis, deniers, shills, climate wars is there to hide the fact that AGW is a scam. Anthropogenic climate change, such that it is, is local.
See: Yang / Huang / Tang; 2019; ‘Irrigation cooling effect on land surface temperature across China based on satellite observations’
Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135984
Pdf: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337836655
Josh, count yourself among those harboring the ubiquitous ideological orientation you speak of. How many times have you challenged Dr. Curry’s expertise, one who has published many peer reviewed papers on climate? What’s your cred on climate anyway, Josh? Résumé please, you may omit prolific blogger, deduced easy enough. You’re gifted at selective reasoning, we insist you add this to your résumé.
Trunks –
> . How many times have you challenged Dr. Curry’s expertise,
I have never challenged Judith’s expertise on climate science. Not once.
I have queeioned her logic and I have questioned the selectivity of her reasoning, in particular w/r/t her take on such issues as motivated reasoning or the social, political, and policy implications of the science of climate change.
> I know AGW is fake…
OK then. It’s all a hoax. And your politics have nothing to do with that viewpoint.
Right.
“Large numbers of people, particularly in the US, interpret the scientific evidence by filtering it’s through their ideological orientation. That you might be an exception to that pattern doesn’t reduce its ubiquity.”
No. I concede that this has fallen down political lines, and really this only emphasises Dr Curry’s observations in this post. And the US (contrary to opinion I so often encounter) is not the entire world.
But, I follow “the socialist skeptic” on twitter, and Jeremy Corbyn’s own brother is Piers Corbyn who is an arch-skeptic. Mad as a bat, but not himself right-wing.
My point is, that political orientation on the scientific question is irrelevant. I can understand how a political allegiance might draw you to form a conclusion one way or another. If we had never heard of climate change and it suddenly was brought up now, we could reasonably make predictions as to how the different poles of the political spectrum might line up.
The irony is that really the consequences of being wrong on the question are to the detriment of either side. There is an undeniably a huge opportunity to capitalise on mitigation for the fiscally-minded right-sided and potentially great penalties for social justice for the left-sided if AGW proves to be a problem, and a missed opportunity for lifting billions of people out of poverty and reducing our impact on the environment if it isn’t.
Not to mention the real and genuine anguish young people are feeling about the horror stories they are being disingenuously told.
Josh: “I have never challenged Judith’s expertise on climate science. Not once.”
Thank you for acknowledging that climate science is factually unsettled, that the lukewarmer perspective presents many valid questions; and that there in fact remains abundant unanswered questions about the planets warming climate, and the role natural variability plays alongside AGW contributions.
trunks –
> Thank you for acknowledging that climate science is factually unsettled, that the lukewarmer perspective presents many valid questions; and that there in fact remains abundant unanswered questions about the planets warming climate, and the role natural variability plays alongside AGW contributions.
There seem to be some aspects of climate science, of which most of the people who study it, feel are relatively quite certain. For example, here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892275/
So I guess it depends on what you mean by “factually unsettle,” but sure, there are uncertainties. You might disagree with how the “consensus” quantifies those uncertainties (e.g., disagree with the range of uncertainty specified by the consensus as to the rate of warming in response to ACO2 emissions in a given per given period of time – as many people who identify as “lukewarmer” seem to do), but nonetheless, by virtue of giving a range in the estimate the “consensus” view indeed does incorporate a viw that there are uncertainties.
As for “valid questions,” that’s a bit of a vague concept, IMO. How does one determine whether a question is “valid?” A question is a question. I don’t particularly care to try to figure out if a question is “valid.”
That said, I note that you went from a totally confident but also totally incorrect description of something that you said I’ve done “many times” to a totally different subject (when I pointed out that you were totally wrong even though you were totally confident).
I think that’s a rather unhelpful thing to do, and leaves me scratching my head as to why you bother directing a comment to me.
agnostic –
> The irony is that really the consequences of being wrong on the question are to the detriment of either side. There is an undeniably a huge opportunity to capitalise on mitigation for the fiscally-minded right-sided and potentially great penalties for social justice for the left-sided if AGW proves to be a problem, and a missed opportunity for lifting billions of people out of poverty and reducing our impact on the environment if it isn’t.
I couldn’t follow what you were saying there, FWIW.
‘The fact of the matter is that models predict a range of values for future global warming. Certainly the upper range can legitimately be called catastrophic. However, if cloud feedbacks (the most uncertain of all the potential amplifiers) turn out to be largely negative, then climate change will not be a catastrophe. Such predictions are within the ensemble of model-generated outcomes.’ Tim Palmer
Each of these models in the CMIP 6 opportunistic ensemble have over time an exponentially increasing ‘irreducible imprecision’ or ‘evolving uncertainty’ – however one wants to put it. The rest is a work in progress. Yet Joshua somehow continues to insist on the verisimilitude of models. Based on a single lonely extract that clearly does not encompass all of Tim Palmer’s authoritative views.
Nor can the planet be guaranteed to behave in accordance with any of these expectations.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/cmip-6-1.png
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161
Note to self – keep my graphics in order.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/2154c38c-a265-463a-9b2c-6599017362ee/rsta20110161f08.jpg
@Joshua – I am trying to say that either side actually benefits from the opposite argument being right – that they are arguing against their own interests; that fiscally minded right leaning people find huge opportunity in climate alarmism, and socially minded left-leaning people are threatening the environment and reducing poverty as a result of mitigation strategies.
I find that ironic.
The made-for-Kerry climate czar position is part of the National Security Council, meaning it is all highly classified. What things are going on behind this veil? Democracy dies in darkness?
“The basis for human civilization was laid roughly 10,000 years ago when, after tens of thousands of years of unpredictable weather, the earth’s
climate stabilized: weather extremes became more manageable, and humans began to practice agriculture. The global population grew from
fewer than 10 million people 10,000 years ago to more than 7.7 billion today. We have a buzzing global economy measured in dollars and cents, but our economic system has failed to account for the role a stable climate played
in creating it.”
The article should say until natural climate change created a warmer climate, not a more stable one. Big difference. As the last glaciers melted after the most recent of many ice ages, the climate became warmer and more conducive to agriculture and to the advancement of human civilization. That’s a far cry from saying it became stable. You can’t ignore all of the climate changes during Earth’s 4.5 billion year history except for the last 10,000 years. Even during the last 10,000 years the climate has had warmer and colder periods long before human activities could have conceivably been the cause of such changes.
The typical AGW response is that the temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate in the last 100 years and to back up this propoganda the likes of NASA are wiping out the previously recorded warmer temperatures of the last 100 years to show the ‘unprecedented’ rapid rise.
Good point. It’s a vast conspiracy.
What to do?
Better understand the system and its forcing.
Better understand the system and the system’s internal responses.
Especially, better understand the longer, never ending, alternating warm and cold periods.
It always gets colder after more ice accumulation in warmer times.
Then it “always” gets warmer after less ice accumulation in colder times.
True for before, during and after little or great ice ages. Go figure!
unprecedented rate in the last 100 years.
That is ten percent of one thousand year alternating warm and cold cycle.
We have nine hundred years of unprecedented ahead to go to complete one cycle.
Once we have saved modern data for a thousand years, unprecedented may have a slightly more valid meaning, but on the other hand, every warm and cold period in the last ten thousand years was somewhat different.
Milankovitch has moved energy south for ten thousand year, energy will move north for the next ten thousand years. It will be twenty-two thousand years before we complete one of these. The long term upper and lower bounds stay the same until something internal in ocean circulations change, but the short-term stuff is a little different and always unprecedented.
Who ‘r ye callin’ “we?” By Al Gore’s own writing, climate change has always been about economic and political restructuring. All of the rest is Alinsky-style incitement, destruction, and division, a’la’ Marx and Engels.
O tempora! O mores!
I can only quote Karl Popper when he said that a theory that explains everything, explains nothing.
Climate change has become this all encompassing religious narrative and it is striking to me that outside of Cape Town (the most Eu City in Africa), we almost never talk about it on the African continent.
My suspicion is that it is because the population is still highly religious and dogmatic in other ways.
What an extremely well articulated post, Dr Curry. Thank you for this, and for the torch you hold up for rational discussion and scientific integrity- weakly fluttering in the storm of ignorance and bias that it may sadly be.
“. . . according to the cover story of April 26 issue of Time Magazine. How have we have fooled ourselves into thinking that manmade climate change is the dominant cause of societal problems?”
That is not true for most individuals
It is true for the climate change activists
One of the prominent beliefs among the activists / progressive leaders is that climate change is now one of the leading causes of war.
Victor Hansen wrote an excellent book of WWII including a chapter on the history of the geo political causes of wars. Any mention of climate change as a cause of past present or future wars would have been considered an insult to the intelligence of the reader.
Yes. In a speech just last week Frans Timmermans, vice president of the EU Commission said in relation to climate change “It’s not just an urgent matter,it’s a difficult matter. We have to transform our economy…… If we don’t fix this, our children will be waging wars over water and food. There is no doubt in my mind.” (Guardian Saturday 1st May 2021)
Pingback: Climate is everything – Watts Up With That?
GLOBAL ICE MAKING AND GLOBAL ICE MELTING. Explanation.
Radiant heat is the only form of heat that travels thru a vacuum.
The average surface temperature of the sun is 9,940.73 degrees Fahrenheit.
Absolute zero is -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit.
The average surface temperature of the earth is 61 degrees Fahrenheit.
I believe the radiant heat striking the earth has been decreasing thru the Melanie. Either because the average surface temperature is cooling, the radius of the sun is decreasing or a combination of both. This is shown by the increase in the length of each successive ice age. The Vostok Ice Core Chart shows this.
The last Ice Age began about 142,000 years ago when the Ice Melting Stage ended and the Ice Making Stage began. At that time the oceans were at their lowest and the Ice Making Stage began. The Radiant heat reflected to the Black Sky was less than that retained by the Earth. Nature began making the Ice Shelf. This took about 10,000 years.
132,000 years ago, the Ice melting stage began. The oceans were at their highest and the radiant heat reflected to the black sky was at it’s highest. The ice covering upstate New York was over a mile thick.
The last Ice Age lasted about 120,000 years. This one should last about 130,000 to 140,000 years. About 12,000 years ago Nature began melting the ice. The oceans began to rise. As the oceans rose the 35-degree salt water began to melt the edges if the ice shelf. Understand the ice shelf is resting on land. About 6,000 years ago the breaking off of the Ice Shelf and melting heat equaled the radiant heat reflected to the black sky.
That is where we are now. This ice age should last about 130,000 years. MAN, CAN POLUTE AND KILL HIMSELF, HERSELF, OFF BUT WILL NEVER PRODUCE ENOUGH TO ALTER NATURE.
The CO2 produced will help the farmers feed the growth of humanity!!!
The Ice Age has three stages:
1. With the oceans at their lowest, the earth begins losing more radiant heat to the black sky than it retains from the sun. The ice in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres is at its thickest. Nature begins to melt the Ice and deposit it on the frozen land areas at the poles. This is the beginning of the Ice Sheet. About 10,000 years later the edges begin breaking off due to the 35degree salt water melting the edges and bottom of the ice Shelf. This took about 2,000 years.
2. At this point the oceans are down a little from its highest. The oceans will stay at this level until the ice sheet is completely gone.
3. At this point Nature keeps removing heat from the oceans and they begin to drop to their lowest point again.
The CO2 graph on the Vostok ice core shows this for the previous Ice Ages. The more green foliage the lower the CO2 level.
The heart of the problem is the lack of a direct explanation for weather variability, which led to the assumption that it is internal variability, which then allows for the idea that warming the climate will alter the weather variability. (gurgling sound effects)
Weather patterns which change over time scales of days and weeks, discretely solar driven by changes in the solar wind speed causing NAM anomalies, regularly get blamed on rising CO2 forcing because of this idea that climate drives the weather variability.
The link between rising CO2 forcing and the frequency and intensity of weather extremes is myth founded upon a myth.
Secular, socialist Big Government science authoritarians believe humans are destroying the planet; and, those in Western civilization that actually work for a living are especially guilty of global warming. Those on the Left cannot prove their CAGW hypothesis but they certainly have proven they harbor a lot ill-will for that part of humanity still productively engaged in the business of living.
Has no one noticed that all this talk of “… seeing the beginning of a new era” and an reorganizing of society to fight catastrophic climate change is exactly what the WEF’s Great Reset is about? https://www.weforum.org/great-reset What exactly is “The Great Reset”? It’s a complete overall of our economic, social, and political worlds to align with the great cause of saving the planet (and ensuring justice), and it’s every bit as “necessary” to save the planet as the restrictions on our liberties were (supposedly) in order to combat Covid-19. In fact, WEF founder Klaus Schwab’s prescient book on Covid-19 is called, “Covid 19: The Great Reset.”
So far as I can fathom, the Great Reset is about giving our individual self-determination second fiddle as “we’re all in this together” and we must pull together, as a collective, to ensure a future world for our children.
“How the pandemic can lead to a better, greener world”: this is the tagline on the “Time” magazine cover. This is exactly what Klaus Schwab is talking about.
I think they’re all insane; there is no catastrophic CO2 warming. The plan isn’t to save us, the plan is to monitor and manage us, and one can guess that the purpose of this managing is to ensure there are no more yellow vest protests that get out-of-hand, or worse, insurrections against governments that might be completely corrupted but yet adhere diligently to the all-powerful Great Reset agenda.
Covid-19 leads to vaccine passports lead to monitoring and managing of everyone for “the greater good.” You can’t manage what you can’t monitor; the more monitoring, the better management.
Who gains? China, which would love to see a world moving closer to its own ideal of a perfect state (wherein the individual is subservient to the state) and see the West weakened; the people who support the WEF gain, and that has to include Kerry, Biden, Harris, Fauci, etc., not to mention all the “good” climate scientists.
Everyone on board?
Agreed. They are also pushing the depopulation mantra. Which is starting to become mainstream to the point where an office colleague of mine was in support of Africa not having access to cheap fossil fuels and climbing out of poverty and the subsequent low lifespan that goes along with it.
Yet he’s all down with the fake African American victim narrative exploding in America over the last few years but totally fine with actual Africans dying in huge numbers as a result of the policies pushed by the great reset lunatics.
It is interesting that you mention the depopulation mantra and the supposed “cure” of not allowing Africa access to cheap fossil fuels. Every country that has access to cheap fossil fuels has at the same time lowered the birthrate, very likely as a result of education. A starving population does not have the time or the resources to educate its population. So the very policy of withholding fossil fuels, has from experience, maintained the birthrate they are supposed to be trying to limit. The policies do not make sense if you listen to what they are saying they are trying to accomplish. If you look at it from the perspective of policies to control the individuals in the population, then it does.
Texas, Florida, and other states are giving them a poke in the eye, as are Sweden and other countries.
Those pushing the great reset “build back better” plan are hoping that with enough propaganda and enough fear-mongering, they can overcome resistance and make government of the people, by the people, and for the people perish from the earth, to be “built back better” as a world modeled on the Chinese technological monitor/control scheme that pervades their society.
They want to enslave us for our own good, which translates into the greater good of the all-knowing, all-justice, all-wise state. You will do what you’re told, or else.
This is real. Once you begin to see it, if you haven’t seen it already, you know that it’s real and it’s everywhere, and trying to close in on us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLHOjsuy7FY&t=15s
Just say no.
In case anyone missed it at WUWT, here is a post by Willis – one of many recent excellent posts. His simple question – “Where is the climate emergency?”. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
Afternoon Barnes (UTC),
I’m persona non grata over at WUWT, so perhaps you wouldn’t mind passing this message on to Willis for me?
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/05/facts-about-the-arctic-in-may-2021/
The final reprocessed CryoSat-2/SMOS Arctic sea ice thickness map of the 2020/21 season has just been published by AWI:
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/W_XX-ESASMOS_CS2NH_25KM_EASE2_20210409_20210415_r_v203_01_l4sit.png
The resulting volume graph reveals a maximum volume of 18060.5 km³ on April 7th. That is well below all other maxima in the CS2 record going back to 2010, including 2011/12 which went on to produce the lowest minimum extent in the satellite era.
Thanks Jim. So, just to clarify, does this represent an existential threat or a climate emergency? I just want to be sure I frame it correctly.
@Barnes
Better pass Jim’s post on quickly before the ice thickens back again like it always does during this most stable era of climate our species has been enjoying for thousands of years.
My pleasure Barnes,
You’ll no doubt be as surprised as I am to discover that my initial comment has been scraped off the WUWT cutting room floor and then published for all to see:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/#comment-3238557
Willis is proving to be quite chatty, and all being well I’ll be able to frame that adequately for him in due course!
Good morning – or afternoon for you Jim. I checked your exchange with Willis and hope you will continue to comment. While I think your arguments are far weaker than those made by Willis, it is an educational exchange nonetheless.
Thanks for your kind words Barnes,
Willis is allegedly taking our Arctic conversation to a shiny new WUWT article at 6 PM (BST) this evening.
Not to be missed!
Jim
Evenin’ Barnes (UTC),
Don’t say I didn’t warn you!
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Banned-WUWT-2021-05-05_00-08-55.png
Sadly the first meaty bit of my “ice-albedo feedback” discussion with Willis never saw the light of day. It included this nice sunset over the North Atlantic:
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/1386814262593601538
Pingback: Climate is everything – Climate- Science.press
An old Soviet observation:The five worst enemies of Socialism:
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter, Capitalism.
Reminds of Cuba story:
Q: What are the 3 greatest achievements of the Cuban revolution?
A: Medicine, Education and Sport.
Q: What are the 3 greatest failures of the Cuban revolution?
A: Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner.
Hulme alluded to this everything notion of climate in his essays on attribution of extreme weather events:
“In recent decades the meaning of climate change in popular western discourse has changed from being a descriptive index of a change in climate (as in ‘evidence that a climatic change has occurred’) to becoming an independent causative agent (as in ‘climate change caused this event to happen’). Rather than being a descriptive outcome of a chain of causal events affecting how weather is generated, climate change has been granted power to change worlds: political and social worlds as much as physical and ecological ones.”
His summary essay is here: http://www.mikehulme.org/2014/06/attributing-weather-extremes-to-climate-change/
Hi Ron,
Mike Hulme’s conclusion: “climate change has been granted power to change worlds: political and social worlds as much as physical and ecological ones.”, is now summarized by the TIME MAGAZINE in the word: “climatization”, which remains meaningless as long the word climate is not defined in a clear and understandable way, see the comments below:
ArndB | May 5, 2021 at 6:20 am (etc -Letter to NATURE 1992)
ArndB | May 6, 2021 at 2:02 am (etc- Roger Pielke Sr)
It looks like some governments discovered during the pandemic that they really like, and think they can maintain, total control of the economy.
The good news is that catastrophism and the indignity of living under the thumbs of petty tyrants is wearing very thin.
And the better news is that China has called BS on the whole thing- they’re building coal plants as fast as they can and faster than they want. And there still isn’t any place on earth where renewable energy is even coming close to powering a modern city.
The tyrants shot their wadding demanding two face masks and isolation for people with two vaccine shots. And their fairy tale about the Easter Bunny “solutions” is transparently wrong. Just to pay for the Covid mistakes every western nation needs to ramp up their economies, not stifle them some more.
China is fully on board with the Great Reset agenda and curbing catastrophic global warming. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/china-top-global-emitter-aims-go-carbon-neutral-2060-rcna136
“Greenpeace executive director Jennifer Morgan called it [China’s announcement it would curb emissions] ‘an important signal’ that showed climate change is ‘top of agenda for China.'”
Of course, China doesn’t give two hoots. They know catastrophic global warming is pseudoscience; they were probably instrumental in setting that pseudoscience in motion. A country that harvests organs of healthy young people, without their consent, “for the greater good” (and incidentally kills them in the process) just doesn’t care if they lie to anyone, so long as the state benefits in the end.
China is aided by US NGOs in their propaganda campaign.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/12/21/chinas_green_ngo_climate_propaganda_enablers_654042.html
It’s no surprise that this “reset” comes from the party that once claimed to believe unilateral nuclear disarmament was good idea (for the west to do, when the USSR existed, now they’re all cool with Iran and North Korea having nukes. It’s okay for the mullahs and “dear leader” to have nukes, just not Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher. )
The current climate “plan” is for the west to dismantle their economy based on the promise that China will do it too. Later. After they’re the only economy left in the world. Because who doesn’t trust the Communist Party. We’re told this even as the climate concerned swear the wait is completely unnecessary- they assure us China can operate on 100% renewable power now, reliably, at a cost less than fossil fuels.
It’s an absurdity bolstered by a fairy tale and nobody who pushes it can even remotely claim to be intelligent, much less a public intellectual. Yet here we are. If you want to understand why the “hoax” claim endures, it’s because those who claim to worry about CO2 not only fail to do so, they’re intentionally incoherent on the subject.
Dr. Curry ==> There is an international news cabal actively pushing “every story is a climate story”. Covering Climate Now, initiated by the Columbia Journalism Review and The Guardian, now has over 400 partners feeding each other climate propaganda stories. I have not been able to determine if Time Magazine is an official member, but it is incorporating stories from the cabal in its coverage.
Thus “Climate Emergency” and “Climate Crisis” appear every day in every section and segment of news coverage worldwide.
They want to beat the AMO. It’ll be all over after that.
Hansen: This seems to be just an expansion of the coming global warming crisis publicity campaign that seemed to have started in the 1980s. Climate change caused me to write this comment. Climate change caused you to write your comment. This website was caused by climate change. Climate change causes everything! Everything that has ever happened on our planet was accompanied by climate change!
I believe the coming climate change crisis prediction started with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957. So we have been given a 64 year warning. Now we are told by noted climate perfesser John Kerry there is nine years left to save the planet. I might have believed Kerry, but I do have some science education — a BS degree.
I know real science requires at least three decimal places. Had Kerry said 9.253 years, I would have believed him.
Meanwhile, back in reality, I don’t need any government bureaucrats with science degrees to make scary predictions about what global warming will be like in the future.
I have already lived through about 45 years of ACTUAL global warming, since the mid-1970s. Winters are not quite as cold as in the 1970s. We love global warming here in Michigan, and want a lot more. Another 45 years of global warming would be great.
20,000 years ago my property in Michigan was covered by an ice glacier. 10,000 years ago all the ice had melted. Not that’s some global warming! And it was global warming without one SUV or coal power plant as the cause.
The purpose of predicting a coming global warming crisis, for 64 years in a row, is political, not scientific. Scaring people creates a demand for the government to ‘do something’.
Leftist politician use the emotion of fear to seize more power and control people. COVID worked well for a while. It was a real crisis. The coming climate change crisis is an imaginary crisis. But It serves the same political purpose if enough people believe it. A crisis does not have to be real to be used for political gain.
Imagine a green boot in your face, … forever!
Pingback: Local weather is the whole lot – Watts Up With That? – All My Daily News
Pingback: Local weather is the whole thing – Watts Up With That? – Daily News
Hugo nailed it.
Once something becomes a dogma and part of a belief system, science and reason fly out the stained glass window. Anything contrary becomes heresy (deserving to be cancelled at the stake), debate becomes denial, unfavourable free speech = hate speech and this leaves room for the Law to do some nose poking.
For totalitarian regimes these new believers are what used to be termed “useful indiots” . Sources of data and counterintelligence.
For all forms of governemnt a new bogeyman is a geat help: all blame can be shifted onto the climate which is ‘everybody’s problem’ and thus nobody’s. Overpopulation? Migration? (climate), Poverty? Climate, COVID and other nasty bugs? Climate. Famine? Climate. Water wars? etc. etc.
Nobody knows the temperature of Heaven, but everone knows the temperature of Hell – hence the imagery of the Time cover.
.
‘This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures — three efforts that each have their own diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.’ Climate Pragmatism: Innovation, Resilience and No Regrets
Earth system behaviour manifests as changes that are frequent and intense at the same time as showing that future changes are uncertain and unpredictable.
e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2015.1125998
People’s views on the seriousness of climate change are proportional to the severity and proximity in time and space of the last natural disaster. Not informed views – very few are – at the end of the day it is still all politics. Contrarians and alarmists alike go through the same motions again and again. Are you expecting a different outcome? The difference is that alarmists are winning and contrarians cannot change that with any amount of contrived demagogic allegories or crude narratives imagined to be science. How far can more realistic and pragmatic strategies go and to what end?
https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/05/16/are-we-to-let-people-starve-while-the-powerful-grow-bioenergy-and-restore-forests-for-their-tranquility-2/
This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures — three efforts that each have their own diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.’ Climate Pragmatism: Innovation, Resilience and No Regrets
This would be really good if they were not lying about all the problems and lying about the things they are using to fix the problems and gaining worldwide power and money in the process.
The Biden Administration has announced a goal of a 50% reduction in America’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 over a 2005 baseline.
The rapid electrification of the nation’s entire energy infrastructure through a massive commitment to wind and solar energy is the primary means the administration is selling to achieve that goal. But here’s the rub. Building enough wind, solar, and even nuclear to replace even half of our carbon energy resources by 2030 is completely impossible.
The only practical means of fully achieving the emission reductions President Biden says are necessary by 2030 is to impose strictly-enforced energy conservation measures on the American public. If we are to achieve Biden’s target, Americans must be consuming roughly half as much energy per capita in the year 2030 as we do today in the year 2021.
My latest update to the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP) — a fast track approach for achieving a quick reduction in America’s GHG emissions — is posted here on WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/03/climate-is-everything/#comment-3238630
The plan described above is completely legal and constitutional. Under current law, the SSCECP can be implemented unilaterally by the Executive Branch using its existing environmental protection and national security authorities. Not another word of new legislation is needed from Congress either to enable the plan legally or to fund its operation.
The big question still remains. How far will President Biden and John Kerry actually go in acting upon their stated convictions? Will they, or won’t they, do all that is in their power as our Chief Executive and our climate czar to reduce America’s carbon emissions just as far and as fast as climate activists say is necessary?
That’s not remotely Biden’s policy – nor would it be feasible if it were.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2021-04/total-ghg-2021.png
Why quibble about Biden’s climate plans (substantial) when it’s obvious that his plans for about just about everything don’t have much to do with feasibility. The combined wealth of all U.S. billionaires is what, $5 trillion? This may cover Biden’s first year in office.
If Beijing Biden were to implement all the plans his administration has couched, climate or otherwise, we might just as well turn the keys of the country over to China. Western Europe with get another free ride on U.S. coattails in this scenario too. One might consider an investment in Rosetta Stone. The EU has gotten a free ride from the U.S. defensive umbrella since the Marshal Plan and NATO were implemented, saving billions for themselves to use on social programs. Yea, sure Scandinavian countries work. Except the next free ride won’t be near as much fun, and there’s not much they can do about it since they have little in the way of defensive reserves; they ride where the U.S. of A rides.
The Russians have gotten tight with China recently; they have another military build-up going on along the Ukraine border too.
Something to ponder; it was the Left who rallied behind this countries chancellor as the new leader of the free world, please:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/germanys-military-dying-110696
If Beijing Biden were to implement all the plans his administration has couched, climate or otherwise, we might just as well turn the keys of the country over to China.
That is his plan!
The Russians have gotten tight with China recently; they have another military build-up going on along the Ukraine border too.
The Russians got tight with Hitler, during the early years of WWII, They do what they think helps them the most at any given time. They will also work to be strong to protect themselves from China, some later time, as they well should.
In WWII, we did not declare war on Germany until after Germany’s partner, Japan, bombed Peral Harbor. Who are we to complain about other countries for looking out for what they believe is best at the time.
“That is his plan!”
I agree that the behind the scenes plans of many of the radical Left are to break the back of the country. They then naively anticipate getting to rebuild the country using their imaginative vision. These same types were endeared to fascism in the early 30’s. Judging from articles, they still have the same mindset, reviewing recent media makes this obvious: “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!” This is not so much an outlier either. It’s naive, foolish, and dangerous. They think there’s no viable outsides threats to their plans, or maybe they’re learning Chinese.
My point was that reducing emissions from electricity production – 25% of emissions – means that wind and solar at whatever penetration cannot get the US to a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Mitigating greenhouse gases requires a broader multi-gas and aerosol strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. Innovation drives productive and competitive economies.
Nitrous oxides, methane and chlorofluorocarbons are all greenhouse gases. Nitrous oxides come primarily from nitrogen fertiliser in the in the developed world. Methane comes from mining and pipelines, sewage treatment, piggeries, cattle feedlots and landfill. Chlorofluorocarbons are a legacy gas used in refrigeration. These greenhouse gases can be profitably reduced using available technology.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2021-04/gases-by-source-2021.png
As I recall the US is down some 14% – mostly with cheap natural gas. There is another 12% ready to be claimed in the forestry sector. It is all in the detail – but progress in all these things are Joe Biden election pledges.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2021-04/total-ghg-over-time-2021.png
I am at the moment attempting to distil off Joe Biden’s rhetoric from actual election commitments. This is an umbrella number of US$1.7 trillion over 10 years that covers a wide range of policy from strengthening infrastructure to cattle. Included in that is some US$400 billion over 10 years allocated to energy R&D – including SMR nuclear power. This is hardly likely to break the bank – and the upside is huge.
Similar to your reflections on climate: the U.S. government is built on a bewildering number of interwoven political “ensembles”, and unknown “tipping points” dealing with sustainability within the construct of an ever-present political menagerie — currently focused on radical Left ideology, and here as it relates to the U.S. continuing as an ongoing sovereign concern. Per May 3 NYT’s op-ed: “Biden’s Plan Promises Permanent Decline”. Without peeling back the onion of the Biden administrations tedious comprehensive climate plan; the administrations plans are certainly not encapsulated within a single namesake multi-trillion dollar climate bill, or do you believe this? Like congress always does, climate policy and spending will most likely be tucked into nearly every bill, or budget reconciliation process, or policy (it doesn’t require a bill to spend massive amounts of money). The recent COVID relief package maybe directed 10% of that 1.9 trillion to COVID. As much as you admire Hayek, you really don’t embrace his principles as much as your admiration suggests.
“Climate is everything” is the point here, after all.
Hayek’s had two strings to his bow. Economics of the Austrian school – and the classic liberal commitment to democracy and the rule of law underpinning his social philosophy.
In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic stability and growth. Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade.
One first has to win elections and there is little sign that the Republicans are up for it. Not that either side has covered themselves with glory when it comes to economic freedom.
https://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates
“Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP”
Very reassuring, Robert. The U.S. government increased to 44% of the GDP in 2020, up from 35.68 percent in 2019. I suspect it will be well above 50% by the end of Biden’s first year. Do you want to reset your premise? Also, you should understand that classical liberalism has no resemblance to contemporary liberalism; the conservative movement picked up the baton of classical liberalism towards the end of the 19th century.
As I said – neither side of US politics has much much to recommend it. And the rest of the world doesn’t share the US perversion of liberalism.
“the rest of the world doesn’t share the US perversion of liberalism.”
Like I said, you really don’t embrace Hayek’s principles. “In 1960 … Hayek expressed an understandable distrust of European conservative parties, which seemed unable to offer an alternative vision to the collectivism that had prevailed in Europe since the Second World War. “The Road to Serfdom”, published towards the end of the war as a warning against the collectivism that had caused it, had been excitedly endorsed by conservatives and proposed as their bible by Winston Churchill.”
By the 1980’s Hayek was particularly influential to the conservative movement. Reagan and Thatcher were both acolytes of Hayek’s; Thatcher was also a confidant.
Thatcher:
https://www.cps.org.uk/blog/q/date/2012/09/11/hayek-and-thatcher/
Hayek and Thatcher – Centre for Policy Studies
Ryan joined the Centre for Policy Studies in January 2011, having previously worked for a year at the economic consultancy firm Frontier Economics.
http://www.cps.org.uk
Reagan:
https://www.cato.org/commentary/reflections-reagan-intellectual
Reflections on Reagan the Intellectual | Cato Institute
A true intellectual conveys to the public new ideas on a wide range of subjects, unearthing these notions long before most people do. That is the essence of Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek’s …
http://www.cato.org
From Steven Hayward, The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980, The Fall of the Old Liberal Order, p. xxii:
“Lee Edwards recalls being once left along in Reagan’s study while then-Governor Reagan went to the kitchen to prepare cocktails. Edwards began browsing Reagan’s bookshelves, and was astonished to find dense works of political economy by authors such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek heavily underlined and annotated in Reagan’s handwriting …“
I mostly don’t refer as much to political phyilosophy labels anymore, other than in critique; conservative/liberal/progressive, et al; the liberal label has become a joke. One can be a liberal, representing an individualist in historical context, and believe government should play a much bigger role, surely; or be a conservative in the Democratic Party, as one who has a strict constructionist POV of the US Constitution, yet still believe there’s a larger role for government, this makes sense too. There used to be many Blue Dog conservatives in the Democratic party. Within this very string of discussion a particular individual calls themselves a liberal who votes as a socialist; in historical context this is a nonsensical position, because liberalism (based on individualism) is antithetical to socialism (based on collectivism).The two can’t coexist in the same political system, or you have what we have going on today; a rapid breakdown of culture. This is why Democrats have no true liberals left in the Democratic Party, they’re all collectivists who cover themselves in the liberal label, obfuscation must work if the path is for true socialism. Most of the favored political labels have been obfuscated to the point of having no meaning, much of it intentionally so, except many of the rank and file who are spoon fed media BS every day. I owe my sensibility to Hayek’s writing, where he actually opined a good amount about the obfuscation of political labels.
I’ve learned to mostly toss aside these obfuscated political labels and instead go to the roots of political philosophy: is one a collectivist (empowering the state), or an individualist (empowering the individual). Essentially this is what Hayek did. From there I consider the many shades of gray between Left to Right as it relates to this foundation.
“The Strange Quest for an American Conservatism,” Review of Politics, XVII (1955), 365, says rightly that “the normal American who calls himself ‘A Conservative’ is, in fact, a liberal.” It would appear that the reluctance of these conservatives to call themselves by the more appropriate name dates only from its abuse during the New Deal era.
F. A. Hayek, 1960, Why I Am Not a Conservative
A string of secondary sources that seem only to serve to claim Hayek as a conservative icon. I don’t think you understand Hayek either as an economist of the Austrian school or his social philosophy.
“the normal American who calls himself ‘A Conservative’ is, in fact, a liberal.”
Yes, but I’ve told you before that classical liberalism is not synonymous with neo liberalism. The conflation of philosophy began at the turn of the 20th century as neo liberalism and progressivism took hold, after splintering from classical liberalism towards the end of the 19th century (when it was just called liberal). It was this splintering of political philosophy that brought about conservatism, as a new U.S. political label in the late 19th century. Conservatism was first coined in the early 19th century as a political label in France, and shortly after, in England; it means one having an sympathetic appeal for an earlier political philosophy. In France and England it was an appeal for an earlier form of the monarchy. In the U.S., conservatism became a label having a sympathetic appeal to classical liberalism, since the latter was discarded by neo liberals. The obfuscation created in the wake of neo liberalism, as conservatism picked up the baton of classical liberalism, and its embracing of strict Constitutional constructionist philosophical principles. This is why conservatives reject neo liberalism, which became liberal for short (again), just like classical liberalism was just called liberalism in its day. There should be little wonder how the obfuscation of the liberal label came to be rejected by conservatives. It was rejected by Hayek too, as was European conservatism by him in the mid 20th century.
To make the obfuscation complete: why do you think Marx railed against liberalism and capitalism? It’s because he was referring to classical liberalism, a philosophy that embraced liberty and freedom of the individual. Today that’s what conservatives believe. Marx would be elated with todays Democratic Party, and what it has become. Ponder on that.
You are going around in long winded circles. American liberalism is not ‘classic liberalism’.
jungletrunks …
““the normal American who calls himself ‘A Conservative’ is, in fact, a liberal.” And what follows, you have sketched most accurately. And enjoyably, thank you.
But … “Marx would be elated with today’s Democratic Party …” I’m not so sure. The prime mover of Historical Materialism is the working class, of which we haven’t heard a peep, for several reasons that Marx didn’t account for, e.g. unions, etc. So I believe Marx would be a bit miffed his central players didn’t pan out. However, what I call his safety valve, the intelligentsia, has been the caretaker/prime mover/high priest of socialism all along. Over the decades they’ve revised, repackaged and rebranded whenever the opportunity arises. Today’s American liberal doesn’t see the wolf in sheep’s clothing, believing they have simpatico.
Robert, please, I told you in the very first sentence of my last post directed towards you that “American liberalism is not ‘classic liberalism”.
Bill: ” “Marx would be elated with today’s Democratic Party …” I’m not so sure….Today’s American liberal doesn’t see the wolf in sheep’s clothing, believing they have simpatico.”
I appreciate these statements, thank you for your comment.
You’re correct to challenge my assertion in your first quote. In my estimation I’m probably slightly premature in my assertion that todays so called liberal is simpatico with Marx; the progressive though I believe is firmly rooted in that camp. Overall the weight of congress has decidedly moved in the direction of Marx, it’s unmistakeable in the language presented. My intent is mostly to raise the red flag high, because once it becomes obvious to the masses that Marxism has taken firm hold it will be too late to do anything about it. Voices of reason must be heard early to shake up the apathetic, or indifferent status quo.
Anecdotally, when reviewing the current media landscape, one sees headlines such as ““Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!”. Sorry for the repetition here, but this is important. Such headlines are not outliers, especially when considering that higher and lower education today no longer teach U.S. civics, for the most part; especially the Constitution. George Will wrote an excellent essay some years back, quantified through a study about just how lacking the teaching of the U.S. Constitution is in higher education. It’s virtually non existent; amazingly it’s not even a requirement in certain schools for a U.S. history major. It goes beyond in myriad ways with culture; BLM describes themselves as a Marxist movement, it probably has ties with black liberation theology. Race aside, such theology goes way beyond racial demographics, it reaches globally. Angela Merkel’s father, a leader of the Hitler youth movement, survived the war and became a minister for the Lutheran church, he was known colloquially as the red pastor; his aim was to spread socialism in the church. Antifa is actually, ironically, a fascist movement; a collectivist belief system if there ever was one. One could go on and easily get off point here, but the anecdotal evidence in U.S. culture is that Marx is winning the war of ideas in the U.S., and beyond globally.
The march towards collectivist ideals is a multi-pronged initiative that hits at all the power centers of democracy. Ecology for example; the Green movement and climate activists attack on energy. Ecofascism goes way back. The genesis of the philosophy as we know it was developed by German radical intellectuals in the 19th century, it was picked up as a cornerstone plank in the Nazi belief system. In Germany it reached the same feverish religious levels as it does today, including with the big man himself, and his officers. The parallels to today are disturbing. The work of Cambridge scholar, Mark Watson, a historian, eloquently detailed Hitler’s infatuation with Marx (even though he loathed the Soviet system for unrelated reasons); Watson presents irrefutable evidence. Mussolini too was a Marxist. As Hayek stated, it was collectivist forces responsible for WWII, all rooted in Marx. It’s a warning democracies must heed today.
It’s difficult not to digress from your main point when presenting evidence, because Marxist tentacles are culturally expansive, multi pronged. We’re admittedly still in the propaganda phase; the coercion of masses towards Marx.
Circling back; one would be hard pressed to get an accurate response about the historical meaning of liberalism, from anyone; either party. It’s not taught much. It’s even more challenging to get an accurate appraisal from anyone describing the difference between collectivism, and individualism. People are too busy grilling steaks in their back yards to care.
You have lost sight of – or have never valued – Hayek’s most fundamental principle. Something that I pointed out in unmistakable terms.
‘When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral
convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work
with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them.’ Hayek – Why I am not a conservative
Robert, again you’re conflating by nature of your own prejudiced motivated reasoning what Hayek wrote by selectively referencing from his 1960 essay: “Why I am not a conservative”. But I’ve provided you other historical references that cut right through your ability to anachronistically cherry pick a few points to suit your fancy; and from these widening the lens of Hayek’s political views, including where he leaned politically to advance his philosophy; where could he find traction from his advice to thwart collectivist policy. Where is collectivist policy found anyway?
As I’ve said before about the essay you reference, Hayek’s critique was predominately about European conservatism; his dissatisfaction of conservatism in the day to provide an alternative to socialistic collectivism advancing throughout Europe, post WWII. Coming from the same essay, his dissatisfaction with conservatives in Europe whom “…have frequently supported socialist measures in agriculture. Indeed, though the restrictions which exist today in industry and commerce are mainly the result of socialist views, the equally important restrictions in agriculture were usually introduced by conservatives at an even earlier date. And in their efforts to discredit free enterprise many conservative leaders have vied with the socialists.[9]”
Review line items 7. and 8. in this essay.
Hayek presented a disdain for all the political labels at the time of this essay, he struggled to find his place, he had no political home: “…What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.” Hayek found an affinity in calling himself an “Old Whig”. But the politics that promote a philosophy of individual liberty and freedom are self-evident, it’s where Hayek gravitated towards later in the 20th century, and they to him as acolytes to Hayek’s philosophy. You’re working way too hard trying to row against the up-stream torrent, Robert.
jungletrunks …
Thank you for your response, with which I mostly agree.
Political labels are efficient, if not necessary, for discussion. But as we’ve seen in this thread, the labels change over time, and are interpreted differently in different cultures. I have a Christian friend in Jakarta who claims to be liberal. Given her situation, it isn’t hard to see that only goes so far in comparison to what you, I, Robert or anyone in Western Civilization would call liberal.
“Marx is winning the war of ideas in the U.S., and beyond globally.” I certainly see how you might say that, and am similarly concerned. For me the question isn’t so much the label as who is attracted to them and how that changes over time. I would say, “Marx is dead.” I’m sure you see the humor, but the reality is that while there are still Marxists running around, we also have those who think they are Marxists, those who ignorantly cherry pick Marxist ideas and those who see opportunity in the cacophony.
You actually sketched some of this in your last post. Loved the vignette on Merkel’s father. And to go a bit further with your comment, it may be best to view Marx as Luther, for the purpose of dissemination. The political reformation he started, much like Protestantism, has spawned different sects and has had a profound affect on the mother church, as well.
We are in an ideological war. And in America, at least, we’ve gotten to this point … actually, quite naturally … as the American Experience started with being a place where various religious views could peacefully coexist. No state religion. The difference is that today it isn’t the English king we are contending with, and it isn’t Marx. And it never is those of us flipping burgers on the barbie. It is the zealots (intelligentsia?) who are certain they have found the answer to all human ills and have forgotten the lessons of intolerance, censorship and the resulting totalitarianism. And, that totalitarianism is attractive to those with wealth and power who see the advantage (think Globalism).
A good idea never has to be shoved down anyone’s throat. It either stands on its merits, without coercion, or it really isn’t a good idea at all.
I’m with you. The Constitution and its values are still the best place as a primary defense. Thank you for your thoughts.
> 1960 essay: “Why I am not a conservative”
Friedrich was at Chicago at the time. It’s a PS to his Constitution.
Libertarians ain’t no conservatives. They only pretend to be to pwn them.
The essential value is individual freedom based on the rule of law. It has its most fundamental expression is in robust democracies.
Apart from anything else that is explicitly what the passage I quoted says. The rest is motivated political rants from both sides.
> individual freedom based on the rule of law
The only coherent position we have for that is social democracy, perhaps the most important discovery of the 20th century.
You may argue for whatever poor wee willie. How is that AI economic overlord project going?
Why would I argue with you, Chief?
We both know you’ll win.
You always win,
everybody loses against you.
A true winner.
Aren’t you tired of so much winning?
An example of poor wee willie’s shock and awe. I’m ‘not dealing with Joshua and Jim Hunt anymore.’
Willard …
“> individual freedom based on the rule of law
The only coherent position we have for that is social democracy, perhaps the most important discovery of the 20th century.”
If we take social democracy as meaning ‘the peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism”, please explain how that has been/is the only coherent position for the advancement of individual freedom based on the rule of law?
Do you agree that socialism depends on rule via bureaucracy? Bureaucracy by its very nature stands in opposition to individual freedom, which is granted this status for specific social efficiencies. Has the ability to use this structure to go beyond its intended exemptions, the most important discovery of the 20thC you speak of? If not, please explain.
Would you say the EU is an example of social democracy? If so, how do we resolve individual freedom with the EU’s unelected/appointed and unaccountable bureaucracy?
> Bureaucracy by its very nature stands in opposition to individual freedom,
Indeed. Slavery is MUCH more free*
*For those not enslaved.
> If we take social democracy as meaning ‘the peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism
If cows had wings, Bill, we’d carry bigger umbrellas.
Joshua … not sure what you meant there. If you have the time, please explain.
Willard … That’s funny! But show me a cow that doesn’t want to eat as much as it can? The more food it consumes, the bigger that umbrella. It’s in the nature of the cow. So to with bureaucracies.
By the way, I’m not saying to do away with bureaucracies. Max Weber explained how useful they can be to us, rightly so. What was missed by Weber, and not by Hitler, was that bureaucracies have a tendency to grow bigger with more power … and … not always are ‘good’ people at the helm (aside from the argument of who decides what is good). Popper had it correct, that social engineering should be trial and error. Bureaucracies should have a built in kill switch, which would force us to review their performance and whether they deserve to be granted the powerful exemptions we bestow upon them. That way you might not find yourself with such a big umbrella.
It’s all cool, Bill.
I think that most differences between social and liberal democracies are mostly academic. They’re amplified by Freedom Fighters such as Chief, but you know Chief. He has won, he won, and he keeps winning!
Social programs work like insurance: they form a reverse lottery that profits us all in the long run because it costs everyone less. It makes people happier too! And that’s notwithstanding the public health dimension.
I haven’t looked at the Covid data since a long time, but I’d bet that countries closer to social democracies fared better.
My original contribution was that Biden’s election climate pledges are not so far off track as to be misguided or so expensive as to be out of reach. Without more to go on than is publicly available – claims to the contrary are rhetorical. Nor can I see much cause to object – yet – if that’s what people voted for. And lest we revisit the we was robbed BS – vote for it they did. If conservatives propose a clod as a candidate – be it on their heads.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/02/climate-is-everything/#comment-948786
What good is global warming if you can’t use it to reset society. poor wee willy suggests using computers to solve Hayek’s problem of knowledge in economies. Hence the AI economic overlord. What a loser.
Hey Willard … back at ya. It’s all good. I lived 35 years in NYC and worked in the construction industry for almost 3 decades. My skin is as thick as an elephants.
“Social programs work like insurance: they form a reverse lottery that profits us all in the long run because it costs everyone less. It makes people happier too! And that’s notwithstanding the public health dimension.”
I wish they did work like insurance. Insurance is protection against the unforeseen or unexpected. The ‘normal’ state of affairs doesn’t require it be used. When the insurance becomes the norm, then we have a problem.
Above, Robert said ‘Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, …’ and jungletrunks then pointed out it may be well above 50% now with the Biden Admin. Whether the numbers are correct or not, the point for me made by both is that there is a diminishing return to large government. And, government and its web of bureaucracies always gets bigger, regardless of intentions. Sure, bureaucracies come and go, but usually are replaced by one with a larger mandate.
I think you, Robert, jungletrunks and I want to help others have a better life. We just have to keep others from taking advantage of that.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Not sure where Trunks got his numbers, Bill, but I would not bet on minarchies:
https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/government-spending-smallest-share.png
Source: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/158853/economics/list-of-government-spending-as-a-of-gdp/
Decades in construction earn my respect.
Bill –
So you said:
> Bureaucracy by its very nature stands in opposition to individual freedom,
It’s my opinion that bureaucracy, by its very nature, doesn’t stand in opposition to individual freedom, or individual non-freedom. What a bureaucracy stands in for depends, on how its used, what it achieves, how it is targeted. A given bureaucracy can advance individual freedoms, or restrict them. Or it can achieve goals that affect different people in disparate or contrasting ways.
A system or institution of controls and uniformity doesn’t inherently stand in for anything in particular, it doesn’t have a character or nature into itself in isolation or in some kind of a vacuum. It interacts. It can take a given set of conditions and inputs and create change as an outcome. A system of uniformity and controls can take a context with X degree of individual freedom and increase individual freedom as an output. Or decrease it.
Take Jim Crow laws. A system of uniformity and laws was a part of dismantling another system of controls and uniformity. That bureaucracy changed conditions to be more free for a large number of people. We could debate about whether there was a net increase or decrease in individual freedoms. Surely segregationists would argue that a bureaucracy took away their freedoms to discriminate. As a nation we shared the overall view that there wasn’t much of a worthwhile debate as to whether restricting the individual rights of individual segregationists to discriminate was incompatible with a larger goal of increasing individual freedom as a society, because a goal of increasing the individual freedom of segregationiats to segregate takes place in a larger moral and freedoms context, and isn’t compatible with the goal of creating a society the promotes individual freedom.
There’s no mathematical formula that states that limiting the individual rights of a particular set of individuals multiplies in aggregate and reduces the level of individual freedoms in the larger society. It depends. Context matters.
In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic stability and growth. Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade.
e.g. https://www.heritage.org/index/
https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/
The roughly 25% is based on maximising economic growth and is empirical.
‘There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.’ Hayek – The Road to Serfdom
The devil is in the details.
In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic stability and growth. Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade.
e.g. https://www.heritage.org/index/
https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/
The roughly 25% is based on maximising economic growth and is empirical.
‘There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.’ Hayek – The Road to Serfdom
The socialist devil is in the details.
Joshua … Thank you for your thoughtful reply. As I said above I believe bureaucracies are necessary, they can be efficient and beneficial. However, I must disagree with your characterization of them as solely dependent on the individuals who serve in them.
“What a bureaucracy stands in for depends, on how its used, what it achieves, how it is targeted. A given bureaucracy can advance individual freedoms, or restrict them.”
Please don’t misunderstand me. Bureaucracies aren’t alive. They are tools. Maybe it might be better if I use the metaphor of an advanced AI computer? The computer should only do what its programmer says. Yet, even if we had the finest human being in control with the best of intentions, would you want the machine making decisions for you? Which decisions? And would you say that with more decisions the computer increases its power over us, limiting our freedom to live our lives? The very fact of its existence, its structure, whether controlled by humans or not, by good or bad humans or not, doesn’t eliminate the (social) relationship it has to us aside from those in apparent control.
In fact, I would say that the ability of this powerful tool to be abused is hidden, or just ignored, by its supposed equal access. Not to be dramatic, but would we be as cavalier with an H-bomb? Obviously not. (Although some may say yes!) Yet, Weber helped build the bureaucratic basis for the Wiemar Republic after the disaster of WWI, only to have it fall into the hands of Hitler. Again, dramatic. But I hope the point is made.
Your Jim Crow example is relevant, as well. Jim Crow can be called a policy. And policies are implemented through bureaucratic mechanisms, whether government controlled or not. If a policy like Jim Crow, which we agree was bad, can become in control isn’t it prudent to make sure the mechanism of disbursement has only a temporal existence? Show me a bureaucracy that has passed out of existence and wasn’t replaced by another of equal or greater power? I’m sure there might be one or two, but the overwhelming number just go on and on, usually getting bigger with more power over our lives.
So far we’ve just discussed bureaucracies in control by good or bad actors. We haven’t even touched other perpetrators of harm via bureaucracy … among which is the well-intentioned good person who has made a mistake. All I’m saying is that bureaucracies need to be re-evaluated periodically, sometimes with a social debate, to ascertain whether the structure actually is necessary and whether it contributes to our freedom and well being, or not.
Again, thanks for your comment.
Government Spending in the United States increased to 44 percent of the GDP in 2020 from 35.68 percent in 2019. Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
2019 actually represented a substantial yr/yr decrease, though 35% is still concerning; but COVID killed the down trend dramatically. It will go up as much again in 2021, but a greater leap up because the spending isn’t stopping with COVID.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spending-to-gdp
Bill, I probably should have fleshed out the Merkel vignette that you found interesting, in that it would have related the point better. Angela followed in her fathers footsteps, at least in her political interest; she was a very active member of the Communist Party in her youth in East Germany, before the wall came down. Specifically Merkel designed and led a Marxist-Leninist education program in a unit of the communist state’s youth wing. Much of this is outlined in a book by German journalists Ralf Georg Reuth and Guenter Lachmann, entitled “The First Life of Angela M.,”. Angela was educated at Karl Marx University, Leipzig, where she studied physics from 1973 to 1978. At the Academy of Sciences, she became a member of its FDJ secretariat. According to her former colleagues, she openly propagated Marxism as the secretary for “Agitation and Propaganda”.
Today of course Merkel is chancellor of Germany, and head of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party. I’ve been meaning to research the evolution of conservatism in Germany. Since we know conservatism takes up the brand of an earlier political philosophy from a countries history, or as an appeal for an earlier political philosophy. It would be an interesting study. What historical political ideology does conservatism in Germany appeal to? A softer, gentler form of socialism? I really don’t know yet.
jungletrunks … A great exposition of how a connotation of a political label can be applied in a truly unexpected way! And funny as all hell! Thanks for the info.
> COVID killed the down trend
So it’s just not on climate matters that we can witness contrarian shortsightedness shine:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Government_Revenue_and_spending_GDP.png/500px-Government_Revenue_and_spending_GDP.png
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States
Willard: “So it’s just not on climate matters that we can witness contrarian shortsightedness shine”.
This is a smarter crowd than you give credit to, Willard. My point wasn’t to illustrate the absurdly obvious; everyone knows that over the long haul government spending in the United States has steadily increased as a percent of the GDP. My point was to illustrate the dramatic effect that COVID had in in this metric, near-term, after it was slowly working its way down post 2009 crises. And further, that the amounts continuing to be spent, not just on the new COVID package, but everything else the Biden administration is proposing will only inflate the metric further, probably dramatically so.
Everything that goes wrong then reinforces the conviction that that there is only one thing we can do prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels.
It used to be spending money. Both don’t require thinking. The leftist dream.
The climate emergency was not working very well, they used the Virus as a more powerful weapon to gain more control much faster, and it worked. We are in much deeper problems now, dealing with more control over out lives since British Rule, Centuries ago.
“And so, climate becomes everything.”
If climate is everything, and everything in is regards to “a problem”.
That would mean we living in time period without any problems.
That might be true.
If you living in 34 million year long Ice Age and recently it’s been the coldest
part of that Ice Age- and that is not a problem.
And seems like it’s not problem because few are even aware that they living in Ice Age which can’t end anytime soon.
So, apparently, if not even aware of it, it can’t much of a problem.
And referring to this:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
What the billions of people living less than $3 a day and without indoor plumbing?
That seems to be problem.
How about electing a president who appears to be near death’s door?
And Trump was oldest president, also.
Apparently that’s not problem.
Do have any problems or is some failure of news business?
What the billions of people living less than $3 a day and without indoor plumbing?
People lived just fine with no money, did not know what it was, lived without indoor plumbing, did not know what it was, for millions of years. Many animals and other creatures live that way now.
If you have sufficient shelter and food, life is good. I know wealthy people who have taken off through the wilderness and spend days, weeks or months without money or indoor plumbing, I have done that myself, but only for a few days. My Choice.
I have had days at home without proper indoor plumbing when Green Energy caused our water to go out during the big freeze.
Billions less people live on $3 a day without indoor plumbing due to more use of Fossil Fuel. The Rich and Powerful are putting everything into stopping the progress. People who have enough, are not as easy to control.
They become more independent.
A very simple way to understand why people are so much better off today is to be found in our poorest continent Africa. ( 53 countries)
In 1970 population was 363 mil and today 1340 mil people or an increase of about 1000 mil people in just 50 years. Wake up.
In 1970 life expectancy for Africa was about 46 years and today is about 63 years. Wake up.
And today an increasing number or % are moving to urban living, just another sign of increased wealth and health.
See Dr Rosling’s 200 countries in 200 years video and start to wake up. Then his video about how NOT TO BE IGNORANT about the world.
Journalists and so called tertiary educated elites were clueless during his tests. Why is that I wonder?
I am a hydrologist by training, profession and (much more) through a deep fascination with water in all its power and beauty. I went on to study Environmental Science – one of the more fun things I have ever done. I combined the two in biogeochemical cycling – the movement of nutrients and pollutants through biota, soils and water. I have spent decades reducing the impact of cities, farms and mines on waterways and the life it contains.
As a relatively young environmental scientist – it was apparent that only rich economies can afford environments. The data compiled by the IUCN for the World Wildlife Fund seems to confirm that we in the west are at least holding the line on the abundance of key populations.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/income-and-lpi.png
The devil is in the detail. The 2007 Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment found that riparian zones are declining over 73% of Australia. There has been a massive decline in the ranges of indigenous mammals over more than 100 years. In the past 200 years, 22 Australian mammals have become extinct – a third of the world’s recent extinctions. Further decline in ranges is still occurring and is likely to result in more extinctions. Mammals are declining in 174 of 384 subregions in Australia and rapidly declining in 20. The threats to vascular plants are increasing over much of Australia. Threatened birds are declining across 45% of the country with extinctions in arid parts of Western Australia. Reptiles are declining across 30% of the country. Threatened amphibians are in decline in southeastern Australia and are rapidly declining in the South East Queensland, Brigalow Belt South and Wet Tropics bioregions.
Our rivers are still carrying huge excesses of sand and mud. The mud washes out onto coastlines destroying seagrass and corals. The sand chokes up pools and riffles and fills billabongs putting intense pressure on inland, aquatic ecologies. In 1992, the Mary River in south east Queensland flooded carrying millions of tonnes of mud into Hervey Bay. A thousand square kilometres of seagrass died off decimating dugongs, turtles and fisheries. The seagrass has grown back but the problems of the Mary River have not been fixed. The banks have not been stabilised and the seagrass could be lost again at any time. A huge excess of sand working its way down the river is driving to extinction the Mary River cod and the Mary River turtle. The situation in the Mary River is mirrored in catchments right across the country. Nationally, 50% of our seagrasses have been lost and it has been this way for at least twenty years.
Nonetheless – economic growth means that resources to solve problems are more available.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/
Cats, not climate, are a significant cause of reductions, as you know but do not say.
The causes of the declines in biodiversity are land clearing, land salinisation, land degradation, habitat fragmentation, overgrazing, exotic weeds, cane toads, foxes, pigs and rabbits… rivers that have been pushed past their points of equilibrium and changed fire regimes…
The point was that richer economies were better at conserving environments. – and not that climate change was the cause of such major declines in populations and diversity.
But we can do better.
Willis Eschenbach checks Biden’s so called EXISTENTIAL threat or emergency or crisis and doesn’t seem to find too much to worry about.
Unless you’re a crazy climate junkie who doesn’t follow the data and evidence very closely.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
The claim is not that climate change is the cause of everything. It is that climate change shares the cause of everything, which is capitalism. I do not see that claim being addressed, much less answered.
Keeping in mind it was less than 70 years from the time Wilbur Wright first left the ground and Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon, what advancements has ‘Climatology’ made in the last 35 years, given the money so far ‘invested’ in it?
Cats are a proven significant cause of wildlife reductions. Climate is less well proven. Yet you mention climate but not cats. Is this a bias? Geoff S
… and cats…
https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/02/climate-is-everything/#comment-948797
The impact of climate change on the crash of wildlife populations world wide has been minor at worst. In Australia there is a relic white lemuroid possum surviving only on the top of a mountain in the far north. He’s praying for an ice age before he runs out of altitude. Cute aye?
https://player.slideplayer.com/79/13140106/slides/slide_10.jpg
Reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated.
Pingback: Climate is everything
Thanks Judy, this is an excellent post.
However, one critically important issue is continually avoided by the climate alarmists. They base all fears – and propaganda – on an unsupportable belief that global warming does more harm than good. However, empirical evidence indicates that global warming is net beneficial for the world economy, ecosystems and human well-being. This is continually avoided, dodged or addressed by presenting only cherry picked negative impacts.
Hi Peter,
Do you by any chance have any links to non cherry picked “empirical evidence” justifying your unsupported assertions?
Jim,
There are many. But you need to do the research.
The reduction in energy consumption alone as global warming increases makes the total economic impact for the world net beneficial.
The empirical evidence discussed in Lang and Gregory (2019) [32] indicates that the economic impact of global warming on energy consumption is positive, not negative as projected by FUND. Dayaratna et al. (2020) [33] find that increasing CO2 concentrations are more beneficial for agricultural productivity than projected by FUND. Empirical data and other analyses find the economic impact of global warming on sea level rise, water resource availability, severe weather, and health and ecosystems are more positive than projected by FUND and the other most cited Integrated Assessment Models. Therefore, policies to reduce global warming are detrimental to the global economy and human well-being.
I have many authoritative references, but far too many to include in a web comment.
[32] Lang, P.A.; Gregory, K.B. Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming. Energies 2019, 12, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575
[33] Dayaratna, K.D.; McKitrick, R.; Michaels, P.J. Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w
Another aspect is that international efforts are always excessively corrupt and never get anything done.
Let’s try to do something simply like stop China dropping rocket first stage from randomly falling on to earth. That China have doing it, is indication the anything, vaguely more complicated, will likewise be an utter failure
FUND projects the highest negative impact of global warming is energy consumption, and the third highest is ecosystems. Lang and Gregory (2019) [1] analysed empirical data of energy consumption and found, contrary to the FUND projection, global warming reduces energy consumption.
https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-12-03575/article_deploy/html/images/energies-12-03575-g015-550.jpg
Figure 15. FUND3.9 projected global sectoral economic impact of climate change as a function of GMST change from 2000. Total* is of all impact sectors except energy.
“With energy impacts excluded, FUND projects the global impacts to be +0.2% of GDP at 3 °C GMST increase from year 2000. With the energy impact functions misspecifications corrected, and all other impacts are as projected, the projected total economic impact may be more positive.”
[Read Sections 4.7 and 4.8 for further explanation]
Regarding the impact of global warming on Ecosystems, many studies report biomass increased since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and over intermediate periods since the Pre-industrial period and between 1970 and 2016. Gao et al, 2019 [2] (Figures 4a and 4b) show the Leaf Area Index (LAI) increase per year is about three times higher in tropical latitudes than between 23° and 45° latitudes (north and south), which indicates that biomass productivity is higher at higher temperatures. Zhu et al. (2016) [3] analysis of satellite LAI data sets find the global greening trend for the period 1982 to 2009 was 0.068 +/– 0.045 m2m-2yr-1.
IPCC (2007), Donohue (et al. (2013) [4], Zomer et al, (2016) [5], Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. (2019) [6] and Chen et al.(2019) [7] all find that terrestrial biomass carbon mass increased over various periods between LGM, pre-industrial and 2016 (i.e. as GMST increased). Spawn et al. (2020) [8] provide biomass carbon density data per 1 degree latitude x longitude grid cell for year 2010; these demonstrate that the carbon density increases as temperature increases. Sharlemann et al. (2014) [9] provide biomass carbon mass in topsoil, subsoil and phytomass per IPCC climate region. The data shows that the mass is about three times higher in the tropics than in the extra-tropics. Hansel et al (2009) [10] provide data on the dissolved organic matter in the ocean at 30 m and 3000 m depth. These show that the density increases towards the tropics – i.e. as ocean temperatures increase.
1. Lang, P.A.; Gregory, K.B. Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming. Energies 2019, 12, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575.
2. Gao, X.; Liang, S.; He, B. Detected global agricultural greening from satellite data. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 2019, 276-277, 107652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107652.
3. Zhu, Z.; Piao, S.; Myneni, R.B.; Huang, M.; Zeng, Z.; Canadell, J.G.; Ciais, P.; Sitch, S.; Friedlingstein, P.; Arneth, A., et al. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change 2016, 6, 791-795. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004.
4. Donohue, R.J.; Roderick, M.L.; McVicar, T.R.; Farquhar, G.D. Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments. Geophysical Research Letters 2013, 40, 3031-3035. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50563.
5. Zomer, R.J.; Neufeldt, H.; Xu, J.; Ahrends, A.; Bossio, D.; Trabucco, A.; van Noordwijk, M.; Wang, M. Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on Agricultural Land: The contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports 2016, 6, 29987. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987.
References (cont) …
6. Jeltsch-Thömmes, A.; Battaglia, G.; Cartapanis, O.; Jaccard, S.L.; Joos, F. Low terrestrial carbon storage at the Last Glacial Maximum: constraints from multi-proxy data. Climate of the Past 2019, 15, 849-879. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-849-2019.
7. Chen, J.M.; Ju, W.; Ciais, P.; Viovy, N.; Liu, R.; Liu, Y.; Lu, X. Vegetation structural change since 1981 significantly enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink. Nature Communications 2019, 10, 4259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12257-8.
8. Spawn, S.A.; Sullivan, C.C.; Lark, T.J.; Gibbs, H.K. Harmonized global maps of above and belowground biomass carbon density in the year 2010. Nature, Scientific Data 2020, 7, 112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0444-4.
9. Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Tanner, E.V.J.; Hiederer, R.; Kapos, V. Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Management 2014, 5, 81-91. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.77.
10. Hansell, D.A.; Carlson, C.A.; Repeta, D.J.; Schlitzer, R. Dissolved organic matter in the ocean: A controversy stimulates new insights. Oceanography 2009, 22, 202-211. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24861036.
All strong cultural narratives (‘grand narrative’) attempt to spread their influence across all societal functions, try to ‘become everything’ as it were. For instance religions, and very recently CRT. They are of course neither sentient nor agential, as the head post implies this happens purely via emotive selection and the long-evolved behaviours such narratives trigger within us. This means that where there is sufficient overlap for many years, grand narratives of this kind will interact with each other (either compete, cooperate, or both simultaneously). And so where there is sufficient social data this allows us to ‘see’ the nature of a new culture in the public domain (with its ‘grand narrative’), e.g. catastrophic climate-change culture, by using an older culture such as religion as a lens. Outside the US, the religiosity of nations is a very good proxy indeed for national attitudes on climate-change, along with the real-world impacts such as levels of climate activism and renewables deployment per nation. Such attitudes are also very different for reality-constrained and unconstrained questions or scenarios (an expected cultural outcome where religion and CCCC both cooperate + compete). Inside the US, it’s a 4-way cultural dance (the two political tribes plus CCCC and religion), but despite this extra complication the same underlying rules hold. [Measurement applies to general public attitudes / impacts and not what may be happening within the enterprise of science and associated blogs; this is not measurable and further these domains are climate-literate whereas the publics of nations are not].
Planet Mars black-body temperature (effective temperature) Te misfortunate coincidence
We have calculated the Corrected Effective Temperature for Mars Te.correct.mars = 174 K
But let’s see what happened when the Effective Temperature of Mars was not yet corrected. Te.mars = 209,8 K
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
Tsat. mean.mars = 210 K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
We have here planet Mars mean temperature measured by satellites:
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
We have the Mars black-body temperature
Te = 209,8 K
These temperatures the Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K and the black-body temperature Te.mars = 209,8 K are almost identical.
These two very important for planet Mars temperatures are almost identical, but it is a coincident.
It is a coincident, but with very important consequences.
Let’s explain:
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K measured by satellites is almost equal with Te.mars = 209,8 K
When measuring by satellites the Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K and calculating Mars black-body temperature Te.mars. = 209,8 K scientist were led to mistaken conclusions.
First they concluded that the planet’s effective and mean temperatures should normally be equal, which is wrong.
Secondly they concluded that Earth without atmosphere should have an average surface temperature the black-body temperature (effective temperature), Te.earth = 255 K (https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html)
Then they compared the Te.earth = 254 K with the measured by satellites Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K (https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/)
The difference of 288 K – 255 K = Δ33 oC was then attributed to the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse warming effect.
Now we have the Mars Corrected Effective Temperature
Te.correct.mars = 174 K.
The fact that the Corrected Effective Temperature of Mars is Te.correct.mars = 174 K, which is not even close to the satellite measured Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K debunks the above syllogism that the planet without atmosphere mean surface temperature is the planet black-body temperature (effective temperature).
The above wrong syllogism happened because of the wrongly estimated Mars black-body temperature.
It was calculated assuming planet absorbing incoming solar energy as a disk. We know now that planet absorbs the incoming solar energy as a sphere, and not as a disk.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You might like to figure it out correctly. It is not all that difficult.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/singlelayermodel/_jcr_content/articleContent/columnbootstrap_2/column0/image.img.jpg/1374081917968.jpg
A Single-Layer Atmosphere Model
https://twitter.com/SquawkCNBC/status/1389541853318553600
The real ‘Grand Narrative’ is that, the MSM is still at it – Bush drew an “X” through the Kyoto agreement and outed Europe as working behind closed curtains to stab America in the back but the media was not on his side.
https://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/add-a-dash-of-global-warming-better-to-be-wrong-than-bland/
‘The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century.’ F. A. Hayek, 1994, The Road to Serfdom
The road is paved of course with the good intentions of the saintly and single-minded idealist – who is often but a step away from the fanatic.
But you speak in the same breath of a massively changeable Earth system and a self compensating atmospheric optical depth. Holding two scientifically inconsistent ideas at once is a sign tat you really haven’t thought it through.
Pingback: The Climate Propaganda Cabal – Watts Up With That?
‘The hydrologist H.E. Hurst, studying the long flow records of the Nile and other geophysical time series was the first to observe a natural behaviour, named after him, related to multi-scale change, as well as its implications in engineering designs. Essentially, this behaviour manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.’ Dimitris Koutsoyiannis, 2013, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626
I’d put uncertainty at +-10 degrees C – with a possibility of it happening over a decade or so. Is this certain. No – it’s uncertain. It’s a risk that can only be managed in a context of high economic growth in economic freedom. To pay fort relevant R&D, infrastructure repair and strengthening and – close to my heart – conservation and restoration of soils and nature in this decade of restoration. Not to seems positively truculent – and that will not win you enough votes.
https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/
There are many economically rational ways to skin a cat – with positive social outcomes. I recommend Capability Brown’s oblique approach.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2021/05/01/capability-browns-oblique-approach-to-climate-policy/
Climate was everything in the Etihad stadium in London this evening (May 5). It snowed!
Even more astonishingly, Manchester City threw off their Champions’ League jinx and finally won a semifinal, this time against Paris Saint-Germain.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/56973031
Phil Salmon | May 4, 2021 at 7:22 pm “Climate was everything in the Etihad stadium in London this evening (May 5). It snowed!”
We are nearing a peak in the Eddy cycle, a warming. It is a point of inflection; beginnings of a downturn to cold (but still early). 1300CE was similar, though some half century later. There were droughts ( and famines) at lower latitudes, not so different from the present.
It has been like that for the past six millennia, as per the evidence in the waxing and waning of civilisations.
Pingback: The Local weather Propaganda Cabal – Watts Up With That? – All My Daily News
Pingback: The Climate Propaganda Cabal – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Availability entrepreneurs ruin everything | Pursue Democracy
Pingback: The Climate Propaganda Cabal - Open Mind News
The planet blackbody effective temperature formula
Te = [ (1 – a)S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
is not capable to provide any realistic planet average temperature approach…
Let’s see why,
Moon’s average distance from the sun
R = 150.000.000 km
or
R = 1 AU (AU is Astronomical Unit, 1AU = 150.000.000 km which is the Earth’s distance from the sun)
In the solar system, for convenience reasons, astronomers use for distances comparison the AU instead of the kilometers
Moon’s satellite measured average surface temperature (the mean surface temperature) Tmoon = 220 K
Mars’ distance from the sun
R = 1,524 AU
Tmars = 210 K
There is the planet blackbody temperature formula, which calculates the planet uniform effective temperature…
It is a theoretical approach to the planet mean surface temperature estimation. It is defined as the temperature planet without atmosphere would have, if planet is considered as a uniformly irradiated blackbody surface. And therefore it is initially assumed a blackbody planet effective temperature being a uniform surface temperature.
The planet blackbody effective temperature formula:
Te = [ (1 – a)S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
a – is the planet average Albedo (dimensionless)
S – is the solar flux on the planet surface W/m²
So – is the solar flux on Earth. (since Earth has atmosphere with clouds, the So is measured above the clouds at the Top of the Atmosphere, or TOA)
So = 1.361 W/m
S = So*(1/R² ) it is the from the sun distance the square inverse law.
The formula can be written as
Te = [ (1 – a) So*(1/R² ) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Now, since the formula is a fundamental physics the planet surface average temperature approach, the planets’ effective temperatures should relay accordingly.
So we can write the planet average surface temperature comparison coefficient:
Let’s assume comparing the planet’s 1 and the planet’s 2 effective temperatures Te1and Te2.
Then we shall have:
Te1 /Te2 = [ (1 – a1) So*(1/R1² ) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ / [ (1 – a2) So*(1/R2² ) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
(Te1 /Te2 )⁴ = [ (1 – a1) /(1 – a2) ]* [(1/R1² ) /(1/R2² ) ]
Let’s compare Moon’s and Mars’ satellite measured temperatures
Tmoon = 220 K
Tmars = 210 K
(Tmoon /Tmars)⁴ = (220 /210)⁴ = 1,0476⁴ = 1,2045
Let’s compare Moon’s and Mars’ comparison coefficients
[ (1 – a.moon) /(1 – a.mars) ]* [(1/Rmoon² ) /(1/Rmars² ) ]
[ (1 – 0,11) /(1 – 0,25) ]* [(1/1² ) /(1/1,524² ) ]
( 0,89 /0,75)* (1,524² ) = (0,89 /0,75) * 2,32 = 2,75
Conclusion:
We obtained on the left side of the comparison equation the
1,2045 number
and on the right side the
2,75 number
Consequently we may conclude here, that the planet blackbody effective temperature formula is not capable to provide any realistic planet average temperature approach…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yet again? It’s a bit mad.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/02/climate-is-everything/#comment-948859
The albedo of 0.3 already includes the reflection by water. No need to add anything to it. Then to average reflectivity of a water hemisphere based on fresnel equations, you will need to use sin(x)^2 as a density function, not what you did. You failed to understand, that though the lowest solid angles of a hemisphere relatively have the largest surface, they only receive a declining amount of insolation. Half of insolation hits a hemisphere at upp to 45°, not 60° as you assume.
John,
> The albedo of 0.3 already includes the reflection by water.
Let’s get consulted from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Albedo (prounounced /ælˈbiːdoʊ/; Latin: albedo, meaning ‘whiteness’) is the measure of the diffuse reflection of solar radiation out of the total solar radiation and measured on a scale from 0, corresponding to a black body that absorbs all incident radiation, to 1, corresponding to a body that reflects all incident radiation.
The average albedo of the Earth from the upper atmosphere, its planetary albedo, is 30–35% because of cloud cover, but widely varies locally across the surface because of different geological and environmental features.
Open ocean 0.06
Most land areas are in an albedo range of 0.1 to 0.4.[11] The average albedo of Earth is about 0.3.[12] This is far higher than for the ocean primarily because of the contribution of clouds.
John, why do you think The albedo of 0.3 already includes the reflection by water.?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
John,
“The albedo of 0.3 already includes the reflection by water.”
The open ocean albedo a = 0,06
“Then to average reflectivity of a water hemisphere based on fresnel equations, you will need to use sin(x)^2 as a density function, not what you did. “
I didn’t use Fresnel equations… I used the graph:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Water_reflectivity.jpg
Reflectance of smooth water at 20°C (refractive index 1.333).
I read the values from graph
“You failed to understand, that though the lowest solid angles of a hemisphere relatively have the largest surface, they only receive a declining amount of insolation. “
I didn’t failed, I understand that…
John,
“Half of insolation hits a hemisphere at upp to 45°, not 60° as you assume.”
I know that… Thank you
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And btw.. please do not “use the graph”. Either you can use these formulas..
Rs=($B$1*COS(C5)-$B$2*(1-($B$1/$B$2*SIN(C5))^2)^0.5) / ($B$1*COS(C5)+$B$2*(1-($B$1/$B$2*SIN(C5))^2)^0.5)
Rp=($B$1*(1-($B$1/$B$2*SIN(C5))^2)^0.5-$B$2*COS(C5)) /
($B$1*(1-($B$1/$B$2*SIN(C5))^2)^0.5+$B$2*COS(C5))
With..
$B$1 = n1
$B$2= n2
C5, C6.. the respective solid angle
or you can use this site (scroll down to “Reflection Calculator”, check the 3 bars under the graph)
https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=H2O&page=Hale
John,
Thank you for the formulas and the important site.
I am studying it now.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Specular reflection from a body of water is calculated by the Fresnel equations.[6] Fresnel reflection is directional and therefore does not contribute significantly to albedo which primarily diffuses reflection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectance#Hemispherical_reflectance
The word ‘climate change’ is meaningless if it is not said what the word “climate’ stands for. Climate is a layman’s term since the ancient Greeks. https://oceansgovernclimate.com/people-defend-your-climate-as-you-use-it-for-2000-years/
This problem came obvious since the UNFCCC was concluded, as expressed in a Letter to the Editor, NATURE 1992, “Climate Change”, Vol. 360, p. 292; http://www.whatisclimate.com/1992-nature.html
SIR – The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the earlier struggle for a Convention on Climate Change may serve as a reminder that the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea has its tenth anniversary on 10 December. It is not only one of the most comprehensive and strongest international treaties ever negotiated but the best possible legal means to protect the global climate. But sadly, there has been little interest in using it for this purpose. For too long, climate has been defined as the average weather and Rio was not able to define it at all. Instead, the Climate Change Convention uses the term ‘climate system’, defining it as “the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions”. All that this boils down to is ‘the interactions of the natural system’. What is the point of a legal term if it explains nothing? For decades, the real question has been who is responsible for the climate. Climate should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’. Thus, the 1982 Convention could long since have been used to protect the climate. After all, it is the most powerful tool with which to force politicians and the community of states into actions.
Catastrophic weather events not caused by ‘human influence’ says Former US Undersecretary for Science Professor Steven Koonin:
https://youtu.be/T8wkaiAXKmI
In our dedication to reducing greenhouse methane we must look beyond chunking steak and burgers. Let us butter up the attention to other such emitters, since there are more than Holsteins and Angus alone. Here are some cuts across cultures:
Santa is in a dilemma retiring Rudolf. No solar power at night.
But no more searching for the loose moose.
Camels will remain on the cigarette packs, though.
We’ll have to shoot all of Ted Turner’s buffalos – done that deed before.
No more sheepish grins.
Something got your goat?
Need to find something else as elegant as a gazelle.
Yak? Yuck!
Sounds cheesy, yet?
Yes, I milked that with gusto.
Nietzsche warned that substitutes would arise to fill the vacuum of vanquished theisms.
The Internet is giggling over Joe Biden’s decision to be photographed maskless, indoors, with the nonagenarian Jimmy Carter and wife while for the rest of the day insisting on being photographed in a mask, alone, outside.
The prevailing thought is that wearing and demanding masks is “their new religion” but I don’t think that’s correct.
When your world view is that any “theism” is merely a means to control others, you’re just practicing the oldest theology on the planet- the raw desire for absolute dictatorial power.
The science of epidemics, environment, economics, religion, crime, education.. they couldn’t care less. Every objective truth in science will be either fervently emphasized or violently rejected. That’s how the godfather of global warming, James Hansen, can be left scratching his head wondering why people are still babbling about “Easter Bunny solutions.” He doesn’t understand the movement he built.
If climate is everything, they will end up having nothing. I can’t wait to let that bubble burst. Soon to come..
http://www.greenhousedefect.com/
‘The parameter used in the model was an equation with a parameter of 0.227 percent loss in global income per degrees Celsius squared with no linear term. This leads to a damage of 2.0 percent of income at 3°C, and 7.9 percent of global income at a global temperature rise of 6°C. This coefficient is slightly smaller than the parameter in the DICE-2013R model (which was 0.267 percent of income per degrees Celsius squared). The change from the earlier estimate is due to corrections in the estimates from the Tol numbers, inclusion of several studies that had been omitted from that study, greater care in the selection of studies to be included, and the use of weighted regressions. Note also that the revised damage coefficient is the only change from the 2016R model used in Nordhaus (2017).’ https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/pol.20170046
Simple equations and heroic assumptions from Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus. I am left with the impression that climate is everything. Indeed as it is for the wild critters – already under pressure – adapted to niche environments in the modern world and vulnerable to trophic cascades.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/rice.png
The alternative to Judith’s thesis that climate is nothing is obviously untenable – but seemingly has a devout following. What to do about human pressures on the Earth system doesn’t appear on their radar at all. It leads to the jingle fallacy that they must be the iceberg to the global warming believers Titanic.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/rice.png
‘This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these problems. The end result is narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, weather disasters and national security.’
Both sides of the climate battle continue to insist on a certainty that is impossible – and continue a struggle in which one side is heavily outgunned. The climate change battalion is all of the global scientific institutions, the liberal press, governments, major scientific journals, etc. Opposed is a ragtag collection of a few marginalized cheer leaders for curmudgeons with crude and eccentric theories they insist is the true science.
The rest of us are concerned that the real objectives of humanity are not lost sight of. It is simple enough to take the initiative on the broad front of population, development, energy technology, multiple gases and aerosols across sectors, land use change, conservation and restoration of agricultural lands and ecosystems and building resilient communities. What we really want is much more clarity on effective policy responses – a focus on the real issues of global economic progress and environmental protection. Emissions of greenhouse gases or loss of genetic diversity are far from intractable problems — but economic growth is the foundation of any practical measures.
Energy is of course central to human progress – in this it pays to have faith in the ingenuity of free people. Thus the SSP 5 ‘marker scenario’ is closest to the optimum path – with an emphasis on technological innovation to avoid what is an otherwise completely untenable emission scenario. .
SSP 5 defined – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300711
https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/10/16/using-all-of-the-heavy-elements-in-nuclear-waste-to-provide-energy/
So good I repeated the Nordhaus flowchart twice.🙄
The damage function based on temperature that they use is;
D(t) = ψ1Tat (t) + ψ2 [Tat (t)]^2
So if the temperature increases 1 degree in ten years that will yield the same damage as a 1 degree increase in 100 years. I think they need to rethink their math, as that is not possible due to adaptation.
.
Simple equations and heroic assumptions – what bit of that didn’t you understand? And it is based on minimal climate policies as the title says.
‘A major advance on the fuels currently in use, says Jim Conca. Called “Advanced Nuclear Energy for Enriched Life” (ANEEL), it has a very high fuel burn-up rate (55,000 MWd/T) compared to the usual uranium (7,000 MWd/T). That high burn-up reduces the waste by over 80%.’
https://energypost.eu/aneel-thorium-based-reactor-fuel-could-revive-nuclears-fortunes/
It must be cost competitive and even then is not sufficient on its own to solve the problem of emissions. .
I think it would be more accurate to say… the Sun is everything
Here is an excellent recent essay: https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-science-has-been-corrupted/ It addresses Judith’s original question, and complements well her answer.
The “control knob” of global climate is the heat of entire ocean.
We are in Icehouse global climate. We have been in this Ice Age for 34 million year. What makes this be the global climate is a cold ocean.
The average temperature of our ocean is 3.5 C. Or control knob is set at
3.5. This control knob has to be moved to change global climate.
What we call global temperature is the global surface air temperature.
What controls global surface air temperature, is the 70% of the Earth surface
which is surface ocean water. Roughly, the average surface air of land is said to be about 10 C and the 70% of Earth surface has average of 17 C. And when averaged gives about 15 C.
The ocean surface is control knob of global average temperature of 15 C.
If you can change the surface temperature of the ocean, you can control the average global surface temperature of Earth.
But you not changing global climate, if ocean is still 3.5 C you still in an icehouse climate. And since we have a cold ocean, it’s fairly easy to change global surface air temperature. You quickly mix the cold water with warmer ocean surface. It could cost a lot money because ocean area is a vast area- but if trillion dollar is spent, it could “easily” be done. But the results will not last long. And long term effect of doing this is increasing the ocean temperature of 3.5 C.
So for example, the tropic ocean surface temperature averages about 26 C and mixing deeper cold water, or forcing the more buoyant warm ocean water into the ocean depths {which doesn’t require a lot money/energy- but it’s what the trillion dollar is spent on to doing] with a month or two of operation, you make our global average surface temperature very cold, go from 15 C to say 8 C {or colder}. There is no advantage to doing this, unless you want change global climate- you want to leave our icehouse climate.
But leaving the icehouse climate would take centuries or much longer.
And doing this trillion dollar thing for such long time, will end up costing tens of trillion of dollars. But in term of a per year thing it would cheaper per year than 1 trillion dollars. But one could instead do small portion of tropical ocean and so costs could be less, and one could have less damage for making the global temperature so cold. So say, wanted global air temperature of 14 C, and so it takes thousands of years to get out of our icehouse climate, and per year cost could be few hundred billion per year when do true accounting was done, which includes opportunity loss of what these hundred of billion could otherwise be spent on. And the loss of not having world as warm as 15 C.
Another interesting question is what happens if just the atmosphere is heated. Nature can do this. We know the danger impactor which instead “safely” impactor the surface, all energy get put into the atmosphere. So we blew up an impactor and had million pieces crash into our atmosphere {all burning up in an instant and heating the entire atmosphere. And is considered making the situation a lot worse.
Nature can do this, because some asteroids are rubble piles. Wiki:
“In astronomy, a rubble pile is a celestial body that is not a monolith, consisting instead of numerous pieces of rock that have coalesced under the influence of gravity. Rubble piles have low density because there are large cavities between the various chunks that make them up.
Asteroids Bennu and Ryugu have a measured bulk density which suggests a rubble pile internal structure. Many comets and most smaller minor planets are thought to be composed of coalesced rubble” continuing:
“Most smaller asteroids are thought to be rubble piles.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubble_pile
Keep in mind what they mean by “small” is big enough to be seen, they not small in terms their effect of hitting Earth. Small in terms of hitting Earth, are couple meter in diameter, and they hit Earth every month. Big in terms hitting Earth would start with diameters of tens of meter. In terms of astronomy tens of meter are mostly not seen, we have detected some when they get close enough- so say, hundreds of them, but there are millions of them.
So hundred of meters in diameter are small.
So could have these small rubble pile which was +100 meters in diameter, and such rocks hit earth on the thousand year scale of thing. Or with Earth and interested in time scales of hundred thousands of year. Earth has been hit by rubble pile 200 meter in diameter or larger.
So, that’s what I mean, that Nature has just heated just the atmosphere with impactors.
Or:
“Russia, was caused by a relatively small asteroid approximately 17 to 20 meters in size”
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/additional-details-on-the-large-feb-15-fireball-over-russia
So was hit by a tiny space rock in terms of space rock which can seen when they get say, within 2 million km of Earth. But in terms bigger rocks hitting Earth it was the Tunguska event. Wiki:
“Studies have yielded different estimates of the meteoroid’s size, on the order of 50 to 190 metres (160 to 620 feet), depending on whether the body entered with a low or high speed.”
Also, “Frequency of small asteroids roughly 1 to 20 meters in diameter impacting Earth’s atmosphere.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event#/media/File:SmallAsteroidImpacts-Frequency-Bolide-20141114.jpg
I looked at numbers, and I see made a mistake- or even a fairly large rubble-pile, such as 101955 Bennu {500 meter diameter} would not have any global atmosphere effect on temperatures- so, any kind significant atmosphere temperature increase would be limited to small area- like, say, around size of California.
“In astronomy, a rubble pile is a celestial body that is not a monolith, consisting instead of numerous pieces of rock that have coalesced under the influence of gravity. Rubble piles have low density because there are large cavities between the various chunks that make them up.” – gbaike
Have you ever considered that this is absurd due to the fact that small pieces of rock *wouldn’t* gravitationally coalesce anymore than they would here on Earth? The force of attraction is ridiculously too small. Even magnets would have trouble coalescing in outer space to form a rubble pile.
The only true logical conclusion is that there is an exotic compact core which radiates a *strong* gravitational force which interacts weakly with known matter.
A radiated corkscrew graviton resolves the “spooky action at a distance” that eluded theistic Newton and his contemporaries. The idea of his equation & that gravity is a weak force is a delusion of the highest order.
–“In astronomy, a rubble pile is a celestial body that is not a monolith, consisting instead of numerous pieces of rock that have coalesced under the influence of gravity. Rubble piles have low density because there are large cavities between the various chunks that make them up.” – gbaike
—
I was quoting wiki
–Have you ever considered that this is absurd due to the fact that small pieces of rock *wouldn’t* gravitationally coalesce anymore than they would here on Earth? The force of attraction is ridiculously too small. Even magnets would have trouble coalescing in outer space to form a rubble pile.–
I don’t consider it absurd, but I do consider it interesting.
And don’t consider it odd, but rather common. As in it points to how all bodies in our solar system {and the universe} may come to together. One could say it’s absurd, in sense of how little we know about how our solar system was formed.
But I tend think it’s serious problem which is due to our lack of exploration of space. But there could be some kind magnetic forces, involved in some significant way.
–The only true logical conclusion is that there is an exotic compact core which radiates a *strong* gravitational force which interacts weakly with known matter.–
If true, then there is a lot of these exotic compact cores within our solar system.
And perhaps the value of such exotic compact cores exceeds the total value of planet Earth.
But I generally think what is valuable in the near term, is water in space- and the solar energy.
And would also not rule out, water and other volatiles being some kind glue involved in rubble piles and planetary formation in general.
But exotic compact cores could interesting in terms a long term aspect of possible star travel.
Though also probably very useful for “domestic uses”.
But it seems the pathway towards this space exploration, is related to the question of whether or not the lunar polar region has commercially mineable water- and quite possible we might actually this first step lunar exploration within a few years.
SN15 landed yesterday, and it didn’t blow up. SN16 to 18 needs repeat this and work out other issue in next few months, then getting a Starship prototype going to orbit within the year. And etc.
And relate to topic, hopefully in couple years, getting a sample back from 101955 Bennu.
https://www.livescience.com/three-body-problem-statistical-solution.html
Stone and Leigh and previous groups have focused on the boundary of that chaotic region, a place where three-body systems transition from chaos to regular motion by kicking out one body.
Kol, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in contrast, studies a metaphorical “hole” in the chaotic volume, where such a transition is more likely to take place. The longer a three-body system bounces around inside the chaotic region, the more likely it is to find such a hole, ejecting a member and escaping chaotic motion. The nature of this exit or exits, Kol believes, tell you everything there is to know about the statistical three-body problem.
—————————————
So what does that mean? Tsonis has his synchronization. That is the transition from regular motion into chaotic motion. The kicking out of the third body.
Chaos seeks to resolve itself. Yin and Yang.
In the Earth system the nodes on the global network – ocean and atmospheric indices – synchronise and then bounce out of synchronicity. Tsonis et al 2007 presented a representation of synchronous chaos at the global scale. It’s a trick. The real spatiotemporal system has infinite dimensions – by using a few nodes on a network the math becomes tractable. It is similar qualitatively to Poincare’s non-continuous Hamiltonian function that he discretized in small increments. Spatiotemporal chaos in the real world doesn’t go away – and the theory may provide the fundamental unification of physical laws.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/laws-of-physics.png
In climate other than tracking a signal propagating around the planet – as in Marcia Wyatt’s and Judith Curry’s stadium wave – the math is hard to come by.
An intriguing video there. But tricky. Note that the metronomes are all set to the same frequency. One can work out how some are delayed and others advanced to syncronise all. (It is how electricity generators are kept syncronised frequency wise).
Just an idea. Use just three metronomes, set to different frequencies that differ from each other by a Fibonacci number/ratio.
‘The results indicate that this network synchronized several times in this period. We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL030288
Ross McKittrick, famous for debunking Michael Mann’s ubiquitous “hockey stick”, talks about how climate science gets distorted:
https://youtu.be/tj0LRVTylZs
Ross McKittrick is less about science than the uses it is put to.
Prof. Curry:
Your reference of UNFCCC Art.1 sec 2 is without the first few words, namely: ‘”Climate change” means a change of climate…’ This brief text render the entire paragraph obsolete. Would a separate definition for ‘climate change’ been of any help? Presumably not, as indicated by what the FCCC offers on ‘climate system’ (see Letter to NATURE, Com. 42 above).
Prof. Roger Pielke Sr. addressed the problem in his outstanding Weblog “Climate Science” that started operation on 11 July 2005. The first sentence reads; “The title of this weblog is “Climate Science,” so the first thing we need to do is define “climate.” For many, the term refers to long-term weather statistics“. Discussed at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/b211-what-is-climate-com-roger-pielke-research-group-2005.html
He addressed the question frequently. Seven years later he complained in June 15, 2012: “The terminology in the field of climate and environmental science is filled with jargon words and the misuse of definitions “ Little has changed. http://www.whatisclimate.com/2019_b_AMS-vs_IPCC.html
Also this post emphasize the problem to the text: “UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, versus climate variability attributable to natural causes”.
The problem is simply the word “climate”, and science has failed to either define it in an academically reasonable manner, or not using the layman’s term at all. It seems time for a thorough clarification, otherwise it is worth discussing:
“Is the climate change debate so aggressive because science abuse the layman’s term: climate?” Details at: http://what-is-climate.com/
ArndB, You make a very profound and thoughtful comment about the meaning of climate.
My first understanding of the word ‘climate’ was given to me by an academic friend of the family when I first mentioned to my parents my interest in becoming a meteorologist. He explained climate in terms of what sort of weather to expect in a broad sense at any given time of year at any particular location at differing degrees of resolution. He further explained that weather covered a whole host of topics and that if we could better understand a few of them in the places we do not go then our knowledge of weather where we do go would benefit greatly. From that benefit he said there would be a reciprocal rise in our understanding of the natural variations in climate which we seemed to totally lack at that time. He was a big influence on my decision to study the weather.
Fast forward the decades and we seem to have regressed into a belief system based on very little evidence. I am sure my academic friend would be very disappointed with our ‘scientific’ performance thus far.
I have recently been looking at UK monthly reports from sixty years ago and every month so far this year has paralleled at least one example of the same month from that decade in temperature (highs, lows, and means), sunshine, wind, pressure, precipitation (all forms), electric storms, and weather patterns. I can see no evidence that the UK climate has changed to the extent we can say sixty years has made a discernable difference to any of these measures.
Thanks for interest! Also the pre-IPCC prominent meteorologist H.H. Lamp (1913 – 1997) would presumably have been very disappointed with the “‘scientific’ performance thus far”, as he regarded the definition of climate as “average weather” quite inadequate, mentioning (1969) that until recently climatology was generally regarded as the mere dry-as-dust bookkeeping end of meteorology.
H.H. Lamb, “The New Look of Climatology”, NATURE, Vol. 223, September 20, 1969, pp.1209ff;
UKWeather lass
I have been collecting UK weather data for many years and in particular like to acquire older material, say from 1800 and before . I have many records going back to the Normans and the Romans, although after the Romans they tend to be often based on religion or superstition until around the 13th century.
One notable factor is how often the ‘character’ of a season changes over the years.
Winters are not always cold, Summers not always hot and Springs are highly variable. Autumns are the season that seems to change the most, alternating between being distinctly a summer season to becoming a winter season.
I think that over the last 350 years we can say things have warmed up a little, but that is mainly because winters are often less cold rather than summers becoming warmer.
I think your last paragraph is spot on.
tonyb
Hallo TonyB,
Got your posting only now, but send you a note yesterday at “eco-anxity” https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/06/eco-anxiety/#comment-949075
It would be great if you do writing on averaging + normal weather. IMO there is never a thing as normal-weather or normal-climate, as long as it is assessed as a scientific matter. “Weather” never repeats itself. That has to be seen completely distinct from the layman’s sphere, where it is perfectly OK to think and discuss about normal-weather or normal-climate.
Good luck and success,
ArndB
arndb
thanks for your comment. As I mention to UKweather Lass I have records going back many centuries
Your comment “Weather” never repeats itself.” is spot on!
Weather is infinitely variable and just when you think you can see a pattern repeating itself with a few dry months then it will reverse itself and we will have several washout months in a row. Certainly over a decade or three decades that constitute ‘climate’ it will vary considerably
tonyb
ArndB
I looked at your links. Interesting about Hi*ler. Are you aware that, ironically Guy Callendar was involved in the UK war effort as a engineer/meteorologist and was asked to tackle the big problem of fog at airfields that caused crashes and prevented take offs for military aircraft and was especially worrying when the Americans joined in.
He solved it by placing great dumps of fuel around the runway at mathematically derived places and setting light to it thereby dispersing the fog. I think this was generally adopted in the UK.
All these things must have had an impact on weather but whether that was merely short term and local, or the longer lasting impacts you believe, I do not know.
tonyb
TonyB
Thanks for your reply. The name Guy Callendar sounds familiar to me, but he is not in the reference of my two books, 2004+2012. Such actions were designed “to change the weather”, and there presumably plenty, but they hardly changed the big picture, and certainly not lasting. IMO the initial three extreme war winter in Europe can to a very high percentage attributed to naval war fare in the North- and Baltic Sea, and the subsequent global cooling to naval war in the Atlantic and Pacific.
But for sure (actually meant as a joke), for science the period from 1945 to 2021 is far to short to investigate H*tler’s huge climate change field experiment, establish that the oceans played a major role in the global cooling from 1940 to the mid-1970, confirm that it was man-made *, and that understanding of anthropogenic climate-change is a very serious, but by far not understood matter. All the best ArndB
*) that would put the oceans in focus, together with the impact of shipping, fishing, off-shore windfarms on global warming etc., as e.g. discussed at http://www.ocean-climate-law.com/12/arch/4.html
ArndB/TobyB: you may find this link interesting relative to climate change study in Germany during the war years. Hermann Flohn in particular is an interesting study, having written one of the first peer reviewed papers on global warming; subsequently he was awarded the position of chief meteorologist for the Luftwaffe.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_nazi_origins_of_renewable_energy_and_global_warming.html
Prior post that omitted the link went to the wrong thread, my apology.
To jungletrunks | May 8, 2021
Thanks for the reference, but H. Flohn was far away to tell the reason for the three extreme war winters 1939/40, 19940/41 and 1941/42.
J. Neumann and H. Flohn Published-online: 01 Jun 1987 AMS-1987:
“Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: Part 8, Germany’s War on the Soviet Union, 1941–45. I. Long-range Weather Forecasts for 1941–42 and Climatological Studies ”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/68/6/1520-0477_1987_068_0620_ghetws_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf
ArndB
good to see you posting.
I think one of the problems we have is the ‘averaging’ of weather.
This tends to equalise everything and disguises the fact that we often have ‘out of the ordinary’ weather, as by the time we average out a very severe winter with a hot summer it looks as if nothing much has happened.
For some time I have been thinking about writing an article ‘entitled’:
“Is there such a thing as ‘Normal’ weather”, which in turn would become “Is there such a thing as a ‘Normal’ climate.”
tonyb
My reply to your comment just one step higher (earlier)
Ian Climie suggested feed supplements to reduce methane in cow farts. It hadn’t crossed my radar. But I heard these guys on the radio from Beef Week Rockhampton. Apparently they can reduce feed by 20% and increase weight gain by the same amount.
Grains fed to animals – btw – are not the high quality grains consumed by people.
Self correcting, replicable science is incorruptible by design. The uses it is put to are another thing entirely. That ranges from poor we willie’s AI economic overlord directing production and consumption to Alan Lowry’s mad rants about neutron star matter at the core of literally everything.
My kingdom for a horse of a different colour.
Weather is everything, climate means nothing without some weather impacts, like heatwaves. So where’s the physics of how the climate generates heatwaves, and how warming the climate will make major heatwaves more frequent and longer? There never will be any, because they are discretely solar driven, and they are a cause and not a product of climate change. Climate doesn’t actually own weather extremes, the Sun does.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-heat-cold-waves-driven-key-heliocentric-alignments-ulric-lyons/
‘The global coupled atmosphere–ocean–land–cryosphere system exhibits a
wide range of physical and dynamical phenomena with associated physical,
biological, and chemical feedbacks that collectively result in a continuum of
temporal and spatial variability. The traditional boundaries between weather and climate are, therefore, somewhat artificial. The large-scale climate, for instance, determines the environment for microscale (1 km or less) and mesoscale (from several kilometers to several hundred kilometers) processes that govern weather and local climate, and these small-scale processes likely have significant impacts on the evolution of the large-scale circulation.’ https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/12/2009bams2752_1.xml
GLOBAL ICE MAKING AND GLOBAL ICE MELTING. Explanation.
Radiant heat is the only form of heat that travels thru a vacuum.
The average surface temperature of the sun is 9,940.73 degrees Fahrenheit.
Absolute zero is -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit.
The average surface temperature of the earth is 61 degrees Fahrenheit.
I believe the radiant heat striking the earth has been decreasing thru the Melanie. Either because the average surface temperature is cooling, the radius of the sun is decreasing or a combination of both. This is shown by the increase in the length of each successive ice age. The Vostok Ice Core Chart shows this.
The last Ice Age began about 142,000 years ago when the Ice Melting Stage ended and the Ice Making Stage began. At that time the oceans were at their lowest and the Ice Making Stage began. The Radiant heat reflected to the Black Sky was less than that retained by the Earth. Nature began making the Ice Shelf. This took about 10,000 years.
132,000 years ago, the Ice melting stage began. The oceans were at their highest and the radiant heat reflected to the black sky was at it’s highest. The ice covering upstate New York was over a mile thick.
The last Ice Age lasted about 120,000 years. This one should last about 130,000 to 140,000 years. About 12,000 years ago Nature began making the ice shelf. The oceans began to rise. As the oceans rose the 35-degree salt water began to melt the edges if the ice shelf. Understand the ice shelf is resting on land. About 6,000 years ago the breaking off of the Ice Shelf and melting heat equaled the radiant heat reflected to the black sky.
That is where we are now. This ice age should last about 130,000 years. MAN, CAN POLUTE AND KILL HIMSELF, HERSELF, OFF BUT WILL NEVER PRODUCE ENOUGH TO ALTER NATURE.
The CO2 produced will help the farmers feed the growth of humanity!!!
The Ice Age has three stages:
1. With the oceans at their lowest, the earth begins losing more radiant heat to the black sky than it retains from the sun. The ice in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres is at its thickest. Nature begins to melt the Ice and deposit it on the frozen land areas at the poles. This is the beginning of the Ice Sheet. About 10,000 years later the edges begin breaking off due to the 35degree salt water melting the edges and bottom of the ice Shelf. This took about 2,000 years.
2. At this point the oceans are down a little from its highest. The oceans will stay at this level until the ice sheet is completely gone.
3. At this point Nature keeps removing heat from the oceans and they begin to drop to their lowest point again.
The CO2 graph on the Vostok ice core shows this for the previous Ice Ages. The more green foliage the lower the CO2 level.
WEATHER IS A SIMPLE DESIGN TO KEEP A CONSTANT 61DEGREE AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE , THUS CONSTANT DAILY HEAT LOSS, FOR THE EARTH.
Very interesting !
Mars and Moon satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparison: 210 K and 220 K
Let’s see what we have here:
Planet or……..Tsat.mean
moon………….measured
Mercury………..340 K
Earth……………288 K
Moon……………220 Κ
Mars…………….210 K
Let’s compare then:
Moon:
Tsat.moon = 220K
Moon’s albedo is amoon = 0,11
What is left to absorb is (1 – amoon) = (1- 0,11) = 0,89
Mars:
Tsat.mars = 210 K
Mars’ albedo is amars = 0,25
What is left to absorb is (1 – amars) = (1 – 0,25) = 0,75
Mars /Moon satellite measured temperatures comparison:
Tsat.mars /Tsat.moon = 210 K /220 K = 0,9545
Mars /Moon what is left to absorb (which relates in ¼ powers) comparison, or in other words the Mars /Moon albedo determined solar irradiation absorption ability:
( 0,75 /0,89 )¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,8427 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,9581
Conclusions:
1. Mars /Moon satellite measured temperatures comparison( 0,9545 ) is almost identical with the Mars /Moon albedo determined solar irradiation absorption ability ( 0,9581 )
2. If Mars and Moon had the same exactly albedo, their satellite measured mean surface temperatures would have been exactly the same.
And this is very interesting !
Mars rotates N = 0,9747 rotation /day
Moon rotates N= 1 /29,5 rotation day
Mars solar flux S = 586 W/m²
Moon S = 1361 W/m²
Mars is at 1,53 AU distance from the sun,
Moon is at 1 AU from the sun.
That is why Mars receives much weaker (586 W/m²) vs (1361 W/m² ) than Moon solar flux.
Nevertheless, Mars’ surface develops almost the same average surface temperature ( 210 K ) as the Moon ( 220 K ).
Both Mars and Moon do not have atmosphere.
It is the Solar Irradiated Planet Surface ROTATIONAL Warming Phenomenon which does the job.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of those mentioned, what percentage of the surface is covered by liquid water?
Mars’ surface develops almost the same average surface temperature ( 210 K ) as the Moon ( 220 K ).
Both Mars and Moon do not have atmosphere.
What keeps warm Mars then?
Because it is a fact, a scientifically observed happening!
What else…
It is the Solar Irradiated Planet Surface ROTATIONAL Warming Phenomenon which does the job.
The method I use is Planet Temperatures Comparison.
the basic approach formula (1-a)S/4 gives
for Earth =240 W/m²
for Moon (1-0,11)1.361 /4 = 303 W/m²
for Mars (1-0,25)586 /4 = 110 W/m²
The resulting mean surface pressure is only 0.6% of that of Earth 101.3 kPa (14.69 psi). (From Wikipedia)
What I think is Mars’ less than 1% of Earth’s atmosphere is not capable accumulate almost three times the amount of solar flux hitting Mars’ surface.
It is the Surface Rotational Warming which does the work.
Like-wise it happens on Earth too.
Only Venus has strong greenhouse effect. Earth, compared to Venus has a very thin atmosphere…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
All I am saying is there is no GLOBAL WARMING. Nature will keep the average surface temperature of the earth at 61degrees indefinitely. About 110,000 years from now the oceans will begin to recede. About 10,000 years later nature will begin to make the ice sheet again. During that time man will have to live with ICE on the continents.
You are the experts 0n GLOBAL WARMING. All I want is for you to show me where I am wrong. I believe my reading of the Ice Core is correct.
Pingback: Pragmatic Summary of the Climate and Community Investment Act – Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York
One of the worst scientific papers I have ever seen is a festival of speculation that could not be published in epidemiology or other biomedical fields, because reviewers would destroy it, no matter how pleasant its conclusions might have been. This paper was published in PNAS, which once was a reputable journal. It uses an unvalidated climate change model, which was not designed for and certainly not suitable for predicting regional changes in climate. The assumptions used in the model are the business as usual scenario, which we now know leads to prediction of excessive change compared to actual measured values. The authors next use output from their first unvalidated model as input for an unvalidated model on crop yields. Finally output from this crop yield model is used as input for an unvalidated model to predict migration of Mexicans to the U.S. The authors refer to the association of crop yield and migration as an “estimate”, and they specifically state that “to estimate the sensitivity of emigration to crop yields, we employ a statistical estimator that uses only the portion of variations in crop yields across states that is predicted by variations in climate. Such yield variations, unlike those caused, for example, by policy-related environmental degradation and changes in farming practices, are exogenous to factors that otherwise determine emigration. Therefore, it is not necessary to explicitly control for many other social and economic factors that also affect emigration”. Yes, you read that correctly. Rather than taking on the enormously complex and interrelated factors that contribute to a decision to migrate, they assumed that only climate mattered, so it was safe to ignore everything else, which they seem to justify be concluding all of those other factors will be the same in different states in Mexico. That sounds remarkably implausible to me, so I expected a very thorough discussion of this matter explaining why there was no effort to include ANY other factors than an inaccurate estimate of future climate in causing people to decide to migrate. There was no further explanation or justification provided. I read this paper several times because I thought it must be one of those jokes in which the value of peer-review was being tested by determining if a paper with multiple fatal flaws could actually be published in a once-reputable journal. Please keep in mind that “climate scientists” at about this same time (2010) were predicting 200,000,000 climate refugees by 2020. To begin, it would be nearly impossible to unequivocally identify even one climate refugee. Even if the majority of migrants stated they moved because they could not produce enough crops to stay in business, this would be nearly impossible to unequivocally tie to “climate change” because it is impossible to distinguish a ‘series of weather events’ from climate change on time scales less than 30-50 years. I could give you dozens of reasons that this paper is worse than worthless. Worse, because it lowers standards to allow scientists to engage in blatant speculation and refer to it as respectable science. I have been a competitively funded biomedical researcher for 40 years, and I still have active funding. I have published several papers on mathematical modeling of complex biological systems, so I am qualified to not just offer an opinion on this PNAS paper but to give it a fair but critical review. I was on the fence with regard to CAGW when this paper was published. So I went to a few blogs and expressed by reservations about the paper. I was absolutely astounded at the responses, which were nothing more than ad hominem attacks and expressing pity of a poor ignorant person without the qualifications to express an opinion (argument based on authority). I was taught that scientific interactions should be respectful interactions and that people who are certain that they have the science right generally approach opponents in a relaxed and respectful way with the confidence that the correct view will eventually prevail. I suddenly realized that many (and almost all of the most vocal) climate scientists were not taught the as I was taught or that they decided to reject the teaching they received. Nothing has caused me to change my mind about this in the 11 years since this paper was published.
Climate change migration –
During the last 20-30 years, Viet Nam has gone through a tremendous industrial revolution, with a rapid shift from agrarian society into an emerging industrial society.
Unsurprisingly, the climate change activists are touting studies claiming the loss of farm population is due to global warming. Several articles over the last couple of years at skeptical science.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #454 – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #454 – Climate- Science.press
I agree with you that “A changing climate has been the norm throughout the Earth’s 4.6 billion year history.” But now an interesting moment has arisen with the pandemic, and the climate is also changing, and should be noted for the better. Perhaps you will not agree with me …