Ka-boom!!!

NPR:

“I would not agree that [CO2] is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Scott Pruitt said Thursday in an interview with CNBC’s Joe Kernen. “I believe that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact,” Pruitt said. Those statements are at odds with an overwhelming body of scientific evidence showing that humans are causing the climate to warm by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. The view that CO2 is a major heat-trapping gas is supported by reams of data, included data collected by government agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Pruitt’s latest statements on climate change come after the second-warmest February in the past 123 years, according to NOAA.

HT: RT. Now let’s hear from some random guy:

For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.

Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. The UNFCCC was established twenty-five years ago, to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming, Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans, Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail

It will be such fun when this nonsense blows up. Here’s another horse’s patoot. BTW, Pacifica radio is laugh-out-loud funny in a way that the MSM aren’t since it is out of the asylum and doesn’t mind bragging about it. (Oops! The MSM have stopped pretending.)

6 Responses to “Ka-boom!!!”

  1. Zachriel Says:

    The Earth’s climate system doesn’t really care about the partisan political climate in the United States. There is strong scientific evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the Earth’s surface.

  2. mitchel44 Says:

    Let’s do a little math.

    CO2 is at 400ppm right now, 1% of a million is 10,000, 1% of 400 is 4.

    100 years ago, CO2 was at 300ppm, 1% of which is 3.

    So when it was 3 parts CO2 in 10,000 everything was cool.

    Now that it’s 4 parts CO2 in 10,000, billions must be spent to stop it.

    Just what temp do those 4 parts of CO2 have to hit to warm the other 9,996 parts up a full degree C?

  3. Zachriel Says:

    mitchel44: So when it was 3 parts CO2 in 10,000 everything was cool.

    When the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was 300ppm, it was close to the same concentration it had been for thousands of years. Civilization developed in this period of relative stability.

    mitchel44: Now that it’s 4 parts CO2 in 10,000, billions must be spent to stop it.

    If CO2 were to stop at 400ppm, then there would be minimal damage to the climate. However, the concentration of CO2 is still increasing.

    mitchel44: Just what temp do those 4 parts of CO2 have to hit to warm the other 9,996 parts up a full degree C?

    A doubling of CO2 will result in a direct warming of about 1°C. As warmer air can hold more water vapor, this will cause additional warming estimated at 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.

  4. Richard Bell Says:

    There is no evidence that human emissions of CO2 are the main driver of climate change.

    From about 1980 to 1998, there seemed to be evidence of a correlation between increasing CO2 and global warming, and then something odd happened after the 1998 El Nino. Despite one third of all human emissions of CO2 happening between 1998 an 2016, the rate of global warming has slowed down instead of accelerated.

    If the Karl paper of 2015, which is based on data that was not archived, was not subjected to the standard vetting that internal research papers according to NOAA policy before being submitted for publication, and cannot be reproduced, has to be withdrawn, then there is no evidence for any statistically significant global warming between the 1998 El Nino and the 2016 El Nino.

    The combination of a slowdown in global warming happening at the same time as a full third of all human CO2 not only makes the claim that human CO2 emissions drive global warming seem dubious, it also casts doubt on the claim that human CO2 emissions even correlate with global warming.

    A big problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis is that nearly all of the climate models predict too much warming. If the models all consistently predict to much warming, then the error is probably with an assumption shared by all of the models, which makes it likely that there are errors in the AGW hypothesis. Then there is the relative uncertainty of the models that no one mentions– cloud effects. If you read the executive summary of Chapter 9 of the IPCC Working Group 1 Assessment Report 5, you will find the uncertainty in the cloud modelling is equivalent to a radiative forcing of tens of watts per square meter. The observed direct effects of an additional 20 ppm is only 0.2 watts per square meter, so the models really have no predictive power.

    Source pointing to errors in the Karl paper:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/World-leaders-duped…

    Sources to back up my claims that the models report too much warming, global warming has slowed down, and a third of all human CO2 emissions are since 1998.

    Climate models predict too much warming:
    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep09957

    Global warming has slowed down since 2000:
    I am told that the paper is pay-walled at the Nature Climate Change website, but the Breitbart story has a free link to the paper. Click on the hyperlink “Nature Climate Change” to see the paper for free.
    http://www.breitbart.com/…/study-the-pause-in-global…/

    A third of all emissions being recent comes from the Oak Ridge website. The data only goes up to 2009, but extend it by repeating the 2009 emissions for the years 2010 to 2016. Sum up all of the total emissions and divide that number by 3 to get a third of all human CO2 emissions. Starting at the end (2016) add the yearly emissions until the running total exceeds a third of human emissions, which occurrs at 2000:
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2009.ems

    Observations of effects of CO2:
    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/…/co2-greenhouse-effect…/

    I will assume that you can find the AR5, on your own.

  5. Zachriel Says:

    Richard Bell: There is no evidence that human emissions of CO2 are the main driver of climate change.

    The surface and lower troposphere are warming while the stratosphere is cooling, an indicator of an increasing greenhouse effect.

    Richard Bell: Despite one third of all human emissions of CO2 happening between 1998 an 2016, the rate of global warming has slowed down instead of accelerated.

    The trend from 1998 to 2017 is 0.173°C/decade (GISTEMP).

    Richard Bell: Global warming has slowed down since 2000

    The trend from 2000 to present is 0.192°C/decade (GISTEMP).

    Richard Bell: Climate models predict too much warming

    Actually, the paper finds that “observations are not inconsistent with a forced signal corresponding to the RCP 6.0 emissions scenario.”

    Richard Bell: If the Karl paper of 2015, which is based on data that was not archived

    The data is archived and easily available. More important, the conclusions of Karl et al. have been verified by independent researchers.

    Richard Bell: Observations of effects of CO2

    “Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations”. That seems to contradict your position.

  6. Zachriel Says:

    Moderation queue please.

Leave a Reply