29 thoughts on “Anthropogenic Climate Change”

  1. And it’s probably worth repeating the Galactic cosmic ray flux increases dramatically during a Grand Minimum, and is how the minima affect climate (reduced insolation is a minor effect).

    Some historical periods seem bright, others seem gloomy. Minima increase cosmic rays increase clouds… Gee, I wonder if there could be a connection…?

  2. Related, This puff piece on Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC’s chief of staff.

    Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

    “Yeah,” said Ricketts. Then he said: “No.” Then he said: “I think it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s dual. It is both rising to the challenge that is existential around climate and it is building an economy that contains more prosperity. More sustainability in that prosperity — and more broadly shared prosperity, equitability and justice throughout.”

    “It’s, it’s, well it’s about prosperous sustainability. Green jobs, yeah, green jobs. It’s a dual thing. And we need to get going on it right away, because you know the science is settled.”

    1. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

      I’ve been saying for at least 20 years that global warming/climate change/whatever they’re calling it today has nothing to do with climate or science and everything to do with abolishing the free market and instituting world socialism, i.e. international communism.

      More sustainability in that prosperity — and more broadly shared prosperity, equitability and justice throughout.

      Anyone who says that is either:
      a. too stupid to breathe without instructions
      b. knows exactly what they’re doing and is therefore evil

      I’m going with “b”.

  3. The trouble with scientific refutations of climate change dogma is that they have no effect on the believers.

    It’s like a headline that reads

    “Local Jesuit doubts utility of Binghamtown Baptist Church’s plan to beat Satan by burning Black Sabbath albums on a bonfire in their parking lot.”

    His reasoning and scriptural citations, however well laid out, won’t inspire the slightest smidgen of doubt in the minds of the congregation, busily buying up charcoal starter fluid to deliver their knockout blow.

  4. “Two new studies indicate that, for practical purposes, it doesn’t exist.”

    Been my view all along.

    George writes:

    “His reasoning and scriptural citations, however well laid out, won’t inspire the slightest smidgen of doubt in the minds of the congregation, busily buying up charcoal starter fluid to deliver their knockout blow.”

    That’s because to the “elites” it’s all about power and therefore, so long as there’s a large population of useful idiots who will believe whatever they say, there’s no reason to deny the catechism.

  5. Long ago one of the Idsos wrote a paper about what he called “natural experiments” and concluded that the effect of doubling CO2 was likely to be around 0.4 deg C warming.
    Nothing since has convinced me he is wrong and I think 0.4 deg C is well within the error band for global average temperature, whatever that means.

    1. There are a ton of scientific papers that try to explain everything about past climates with CO2, even though it doesn’t correlate at all. Those will be amusing to bring up again and again.

    1. What’s funny is that a scientist wouldn’t feel any need to slap up a refutation the day-of or the day-after, because science doesn’t work like that. A new religious cult, however, does require rapid response teams to get the church’s talking points out there before any poor soul in the flock starts to doubt, maybe even waver. Judging from their actions, they’re more akin to Scientology than to a branch of science.

    1. Fascinating Andrew. I’ve never encountered someone who feels the need to refute crap. Yet you do, and you claim to do it quickly. Tell me; what drives you to quickly respond to crap?

      Personally, if someone comes to me and tells me the world is flat; I don’t refute them. I walk away from them, like I would walk away from any load of crap. Yet you feel the need to stick around, nay run fast to it, and refute it. It makes you and your thoughts seem fragile.

  6. It reminds me of the last time climate “scientists” refuted a theory within a day. It was regarding the cosmic ray/cloud hypothesis, and the “scientists” were in such a rush that their refutation got the theory exactly backwards, thinking increased solar activity increases cosmic ray flux, instead of having an inverse relation. It was hilarious.

    They don’t care if their quick response is remotely correct, only that true believers like Andrew never suffer a moment of doubt.

    1. George Turner, do you know why the data referred to in the Kauppinen and Malmi paper stops at 2009?
      It’s because the paper is a rehash of older papers using dated and faulty data. The claims aren’t new, and neither is the response, the real mystery is why some people keep leaping at each new non-peer reviewed “skeptic” paper as it comes off the press in desperation that they might finally have a paper that refutes the science that supports the likelihood of significant AGW.

      “True believers like Andrew never suffer a moment of doubt.”

      I would have thought the true believers were the ones who, after decades of warming that fits in with AGW and with no other likely cause that’s been offered, still stubbornly cling to their faith that there just has to be some other explanation – so jump at every obscure paper published in open access “journals” as possible salvation for that faith.

      1. “I would have thought the true believers were the ones who, after decades of warming that fits in with AGW..”

        Fits in? The models are junk with cooked input data and cannot predict anything.

        How does the “warming” “fit”?

        1. It’s easy really, I know you “skeptics” prefer to select models that don’t use realistic inputs to misrepresent what the actual outputs are, but those doing the actual science prefer to use models in which the inputs and outputs match observation, if they don’t match the model needs changing.
          All the claims that scientists think “reality must be wrong” are BS talking points, smears that themselves don’t fit reality.
          https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL064888

          1. Andrew bloviates:

            “George Turner, do you know why the data referred to in the Kauppinen and Malmi paper stops at 2009?”

            Andrew – you are looking really REALLY silly here. There are reasons why the report uses data that ends in 2009. But you are too feckless to be sure of what you are saying before you expel nonsense.

            Tell us:

            1) Which IPCC report was the Kaupinnen and Malmi paper addressing?

            2) The data used in THAT IPCC report ends…..WHEN?

            Since you are long on gas but short on willingness to study the docs before you emit that gas, I’ll give you a hint: look at the plots in the reprint of Figure 1 (a reprint of a figure from the IPCC paper).

            If you are really serious download the CORRECT IPCC paper the K&M paper is addressing.

            AND READ IT.

            But since you are proven to be lazy, go to page viii and read the section entitles “The Process”.

            Or go look at all the figures and plots in the section entitles “Summary for Policymakers” (SPM Page 3). Especially figure SPM.6

            What do the vertical black lines in the plots of SPM.7 mean? And what are the sources of the data plotted to the left of that line?

            What does table SPM.3 and Figure SPM.9 and SPM.10 (for example) have in common?

            Under “Technical Summary”, look at Figure TS.1, what does the range of the X axis tell you?

          2. “… but those doing the actual science prefer to use models in which the inputs and outputs match observation,..”

            Yes the ACTUAL scientists…not the IPCC fiction writers nor the collection of grant-seeking virtue signalers.

            The models that your side use cannot even predict the past let alone the future. And it’s a proven fact that the data is cooked.

          3. if they don’t match the model needs changing.

            Andrew, why do you think every model, literally every single one, has been wrong in the same direction. Wrong by different magnitudes, but always, always, in the same directions. Why do you think that is Andrew?

          4. Greg,

            “And so the Baptist high schooler heading to the Black Sabbath album burning slapped the Jesuit down with some ‘facts about Jesus’ and stomped off, victorious.

            Later the town’s Methodists, Episcopals, Presbyterians, Catholics, and regular Baptists said, in hushed tones, ‘My my. He is running quite a little Jesus cult, isn’t he? I hope they don’t go Jim Jones on us.'”

            Things like the Green New Deal are the full Jim Jones.

            The Curry and Lewis 2018 paper estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity at roughly 1.05 K to 2.7 K, which I felt was a bit high from a feedback and stability standpoint.

            And as Mann and his cohorts proudly declared, they control the journals and the peer-review process, which lets their followers retort “non-peer reviewed!” as if it still has any meaning. For one, virtually nothing published today is peer-reviewed in the older scientific sense, and in many fields virtually no studies are independently replicated.

            When science is corrupted just like the church of old, it loses its authority and will have to struggle mightily for decades to get it back. Making climate science, one of the worst offending fields in this regard, serve as the flagship project for all of science will perhaps turnout to be the greatest mistake the endeavor made in the 20th century.

            *disclaimer: The church’s videos are all over Youtube. I went to school with the current preacher and the kids who talked up the album burnings. Of course my high school didn’t offer a course in climate science, not even universities did back then, but in retrospect it apparently was a PhD program in “climate science studies” that has served me well.

      2. “It’s because the paper is a rehash of older papers using dated and faulty data.”

        ‘Dated and faulty data’?

        Do you mean the actual temperature data before it’s been ‘adjusted’ to create warming?

        An actual scientist only has to look at the repeated ‘adjustments’ and their creation of previously non-existent warming trends to realise that AGW is complete garbage.

  7. The anthropomorphic arrogance in assuming people can stop Mother Nature is sort of awesome. In a psycho observational scientific way.

    These arguments are dead. The only thing keeping the climate chicanery alive is leftist animism. The exception is the rule. Zero carbon is death. All life is carbon based.

    More rocketry. It appears Elon is blasting off his stainless barnyard rocket sooner that people can adjust their messaging to. The people systems that allow this are worth studying. For 1000 years.

    1. “The anthropomorphic arrogance in assuming people can stop Mother Nature is sort of awesome.”

      I find this sort of moral reasoning bizarre. Arrogance or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with what the evidence says,

      What you are doing here is a kind of ad hominem argument. “Believeing X is arrogant, so if you believe X, you are a bad person, and therefore you shouldn’t believe X.” It’s like creationists saying your shouldn’t believe in evolution because that would make you a bad person.

    2. The anthropomorphic arrogance in assuming people can stop Mother Nature is sort of awesome.

      All it takes is enough time and energy and you can stop anything in nature short of cosmological scale things like the heat death of the universe.

      I notice people don’t claim there’s anthropomorphic arrogance in flying or making enormous floating ships, but in the not-so-distant past that was impossible due to our lower technology development of the past. Man has always had an impressive ability to control nature. It has only gotten better with time – no assumptions needed.

      Sure, one can wonder at the morality of such things, but actual capabilities merely are larger scale than present. There is nothing inherently impossible about the human race’s ability to shift the world into either a glacial age or a higher temperature regime where there is little polar ice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *