It’s interesting to take one set of facts -there are wildfires in Canada, the smoke is going toward the East Coast, and people who aren’t used to wildfire smoke were breathing it-, and see how those facts can be framed differently. There are different fires in Canada, in extremely different parts of the country, that are being managed differently, from full suppression to big boxes or what we might call wildland fire use, ignited by different sources. This tends to get lost in some of the reporting.
(Some) Legacy Coastal Media and Some Politicians- Wildfire Smoke, the Scent of Apocalypse
If you read the NYTimes or the WaPo, it’s the harbinger of apocalyptic climate change. Perhaps because the WaPo hired a bunch of climate reporters, it’s not surprising that any story could be seen through the climate lens.
I’m not saying that climate and weather don’t affect wildfires. I’m just saying that it’s difficult to tease apart the contributions of various climate change elements (different greenhouse gases, land use changes) from natural variability and a host of other factors (ignitions, fire policy) and the history of vegetation that has developed through time. I’m OK with saying “it’s complex, and we don’t really know, but from what we know, the sum of human impacts on climate have affected the situation.” It’s complicated. But to some politicians, it’s simple- and the answer- to quit fossil fuels:
So that’s one framing.
The Hotshot Wakeup- It’s Complicated And You Need Suppression Folks- So Treat Them Decently and Support the Tim Hart Act
Let’s take a great the Hotshot Wakeup podcast from last week, titled “How Did the Canadian Wildfires Start? A Rational Response in a Sea of Conspiracy. What’s Really Happening?”
Tim does a terrific job of talking to people on the ground in Canada, and also trying to explain to people who aren’t familiar with the wildland fire world how things work. You can tell why he thinks the way he does because he gives his rationale. He also discusses some of the “out there” ideas that are floating around and, perhaps most importantly, doesn’t seem to have a specific axe to grind about causality (or would that be a pulaski?). He’s another one who looks at the situation and says “it’s complicated.”
He seems to come to the eminently practical suggestion that no matter what the different causes (ignitions, climate, past fire suppression), we are going to need wildland firefighters and they are not being paid or treated well and may walk off the job if Congress doesn’t get its act together. He suggests we all call our representatives and support the Tim Hart Act. NFFE has a link you can use to make it easy. I’d like to understand who is against it and why. Which goes back to the need for some Smokey Wire legislative contributors.
Anyway, I contacted my Congressperson’s office as a Smokey Wire reporter and asked whether they were supporting the Tim Hart Act, and if not, why not. They said their legislative team was reviewing it and did email me afterwards to say (sadly I’m not kidding) “I talked to our legislative team about the bill, and they said our office is not supportive as it’s a massive increase in expenditures for something that could be carried out at a state level.” I wrote back and said how can the state fund Federal firefighters?” and I haven’t heard back yet. I believe in fiscal responsibility, but the very same Congress just approved the IRA and BIL which the Admin seems to be sometimes using as a slush fund for their pet priorities (e.g., mapping intactness of BLM). After this depressing experience, I feel that filling out the NFFE form or calling would be helpful. It doesn’t matter is anthropogenic climate change is responsible for 5% or 40%, we need firefighters and they deserve to be treated decently.
Cliff Maas the Meteorologist- Smoke- Bad Luck Plus Some Climate Change?
in the Wall Street Journal. I like how he mentions plants and seasonal drying. I don’t know how true this is of the areas involved.. would like to hear more local Canadian observations on the plants. The below is long, but in case you don’t get the Wall Street Journal..
The recent wildfires occurred in the boreal forests of northern Quebec. Fire isn’t rare in that region. The ecology of these forests relies on fire for the release of seeds and forest health. Many of the major boreal fires occur during a narrow temporal window from mid-April through early June, just after the winter snow has melted and before grasses and other small plants grow, reducing flammability. During this short window, the dead vegetation from the previous year can dry out sufficiently to burn if there is an ignition source such as lightning or errant human activity.
Many of the great Quebec fires have occurred during the spring, such as the May 2010 fire that spread massive amounts of smoke into New England and the May 1870 Saguenay fire, which spread smoke as far as the British Isles. Large boreal forest fires during the spring in Canada are neither unusual nor a sign of climate change.
The fires this month began on June 2, as hundreds of lightning strikes ignited vegetation dried by nearly a week of unusually warm weather. The weather prior to the warm spell wasn’t unusually dry, with the Canadian drought monitor showing normal moisture conditions and temperatures near or below normal.
Starting on May 27, an area of high pressure built over south-central Canada, warming and drying the area for several days into early June. With the light surface fuels, such as grasses ready to burn, all that was needed to start a fire was an ignition source, which occurred in early June with a lightning storm associated with low pressure.
The lightning ignited numerous fires and the low-pressure center’s circulation produced high winds that stoked the fires, resulting in rapid uncontrolled growth. Even worse, as the low center pushed south and intensified east of New York, it produced persistent strong winds from the northwest, moving the Quebec smoke into the New York metropolitan area.
It was the perfect storm for smoke in New York, with several independent elements occurring in exactly the right sequence. It’s difficult to find any plausible evidence for a significant climate-change connection to the recent New York smoke event. The preceding weather conditions over Quebec for the months prior to the wildfire event were near normal. There is no evidence that the strong high pressure over southern Canada that produced the warming was associated with climate change, as some media headlines claim. In fact, there is a deep literature in the peer-reviewed research that demonstrates no amplification of high- and low-pressure areas with a warming planet.
The long-term trend in Quebec has been for both precipitation and temperature to increase. Temperatures have warmed about 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past half-century. Even assuming that this warming is entirely human-induced, it represents only a small proportion of the excessive heat during the event, in which Quebec temperatures climbed to 20 to 25 degrees above normal. The number of wildfires in Quebec is decreasing; there is no upward trend in area burned, which would be expected if global warming was dominant.
**********************
The Hotshot Wakeup also has a new post on arson in the Canada wildfires titled “Alberta Premier Says She’s Bringing in Arson Investigators From Outside the Province.-175 fires in Alberta still have unknown causes. Very Interesting Indeed.”
But if we read what Google searches come up with on the Alberta arson question (or at least mine does), we get interesting anti-arsonist-explanation sentiment..
“There’s a certain logic to trying to distract from the terror of wildfires and the changing climate that helps set the conditions for them. For many individuals, perhaps the truth is so unimaginable, unsettling and unavoidable, they refuse to accept the complex origins of the new reality. ”
And pretty much call the interest in arson “disinformation”.
The facts will come out as to how many, if any, were started by arson, so we’ll see. It’s interesting to note the fact to spin ratio… But why is it so hard for many to say “it’s complicated” instead of “it’s climate”? Is that in itself “disinformation”?
Cliff Mass (not Maas) is not a climatologist. As you note, he is a meteorologist. His pontificating on climate issues is wholly inappropriate. He has on occasion had direct conflicts (publicly on social media) with actual climate experts; he is not part of their community. Weather is not climate.
Statements like “It’s difficult to find any plausible evidence for a significant climate-change connection…” and “There is no evidence that the strong high pressure over southern Canada that produced the warming was associated with climate change…” have no basis in the vast majority of “the peer-reviewed research” on climate change. The fact that Mass’s nonsense appears in the Wall Street Journal should tell you something.
Check out the Wiki page on Mass for the mildest of summaries of his inability to know the limits of his own expertise, let along appropriate topics for public statement.
Hi Toby: What are your personal credentials for disparaging Cliff Mass’ abilities or observations? Or for differentiating between a meteorologist and a climatologist? I have been writing on this issue from a forestry perspective for more than 30 years and believe Cliff has a much (much) better grasp on this situation than either you or the Mayor of New York. Mass is a respected scientist with a great track record — how does that compare to your own? Is the “peer reviewed research” you cite actual research, or just more biased modeling? I’m guessing the latter.
Note: I have never met Mass, but have corresponded with him a bit at times on these types of issues, and I did a 15-minute Zoom presentation for his organization on this topic during the pandemic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVSnCs9LxeY
You guessed wrong. I’ve been studying climate issues for over 20 years. I read the peer reviewed literature plus portions of IPCC reports as well as the U.S. and some state “climate change/status” reports (especially Washington State). I have worked on climate issues for a good part of that time, especially adaptation, with communities all over the U.S. I have subscribed to realclimate.org for many years.
As for Cliff Mass, I live in Seattle and have watched his career since before he got evicted from KUOW for speaking off topic (read the Wiki page for a one sentence summary). I have watched Mass engage with the authors of the peer reviewed climate literature and seen him get his hat handed to him. He appears to be particularly weak in statistical analysis. Here’s one example from my archives: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/hansen-et-al-2012/
Mass sounds particularly ignorant when he makes the classic debate mistake of certitude (e.g., there is “no evidence”).
I remember the incident when he used Kristallnacht to describe what was happening in Seattle after George Floyd was murdered by cops in Minneapolis (mentioned at the Wiki page). As a Jew I was particularly offended by that incident.
IMO, Cliff Mass doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. I am reporting based on considerable evidence and will continue to do so whenever I see him pontificate in public on climate when he clearly doesn’t have a clue.
p.s. After completing the above, I decided to look you up. I went as far as finding that you’ve been on the board at The Heartland Institute to know I don’t need to spend more time engaging with you. For other readers, the first sentence of Wiki on Heartland: “The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.”
Dear Toby,
Thank you for telling us that you see science through a political (and religious!) lens. That says you have no hope of understanding it.
Competent science is profoundly non-political. That means you cannot summarily reject something you read, just because it came from a source you do not approve of. You have to examine the logic and evidence, if you want to ‘think like a scientist.’
For instance, I agree with James Hansen about attributing the significant decline in global temperatures over the last 8,000 years to an advancing Milankovitch cycle. We are now in a Milankovitch ‘Great Winter,’ because the Earth’s closest approach to the Sun is in January, the peak of the Southern Hemisphere summer.
The evidence for this decline comes from the work of RB Alley, a prominent alarmist at Penn State. His work on Greenland ice cores seems to be very competent. Hence Hansen and I make use of his temperature reconstructions.
When the latest recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, John Clauser, was invited to the White House, he told President Biden that he was skeptical of prevailing climate science. Biden responded, calling skepticism “right-wing science.” That was an attempt to end the conversation without ever having to listen to the Nobel Laureate’s ideas.
Such putdowns were common in 1920s and 1930s Germany, when Nobel Laureate Max Planck insisted on teaching “Jewish Physics.” “Jewish Physics” was a derogatory term for Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
If climate science interests you, I suggest learning some of the underlying science.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
John Clauser, who has no expertise in climate science, and made a big mistake by joining the Board of the CO2 Coalition, a well-known front group for the fossil fuel industry.
AFAIK, he hasn’t published a single paper in the field of climate science. He does not have expertise in field of climate science. His views on the subject have shown no evidence of being meaningful or important.
Joe Biden was right to disregard him.
David wrote–“AFAIK, he hasn’t published a single paper in the field of climate science. He does not have expertise in field of climate science. His views on the subject have shown no evidence of being meaningful or important.”
NEITHER hAVE YOU (to each of your claims)
At least he didn’t make a fool of himself by claiming that man’s CO2 caused hurricane Katrina? (The Guardian, Dec 12, 2008)
“There is no crisis that will change our minds – not heat waves in France, not Katrina, not the disappearance of Arctic ice up north.” By David Appell https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/12/environment-climate-change-poznan
How do you explain the FACT that global warming stopped a decade ago using USCRN’s highly accurate data?
Hello again david, we’ve missed you frequent attacks on people who did not fall for Al Gore’s climate scam.
Have you EVER found actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming? As you recall I have been asking you this question for close to a decade and you have NEVER been able to show actual evidence.
As a refresher, here is a brief description of evidence:
1-Evidence of warming, unusual weather, storms, floods IS NOT evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause.
2-Correlation is not causation
3-An expert’s assertion, or government’s assertion is not evidence. It is hearsay.
4-Consensus of experts, Polls or Majority belief is not evidence
5-Climate models are not evidence.
6–Warmest weather in 100 years means it was warmer 100 years ago when CO2 was lower.
7-If an event is NOT unprecedented, then you have to explain why whatever caused the earlier events is NOT the cause of the latest occurrence of that event.
Evidence is actual data PRO AND CON with reasoned analysis and logical conclusions while FULLY CONSIDERING OPPOSING evidence.
( be sure to include an explanation of what caused previous, mostly evenly spaced, warmings warmer than today’s climate which fits the spacing and why that cause stopped causing warmings to make room for man’s CO2 to cause today’s warming.)
Here is some contrary evidence you MUST include in your showing that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming:
1. Our current climate started warming 200 years BEFORE man’s CO2 emissions started to rise. NOT before.
2. Previous Holocene warm periods were warmer than now.
3. Solar fits climate better than CO2
4. There is nothing unusual about today’s climate compared to before man emitted CO2.
5. Recent warming is a same rate as the late 1800s but now with much more of man’s CO2. (More of a cause should cause more effect.)
6. Man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous warming.
7. Man emits only 5% of annual CO2. Plus CO2 only causes 9-26% of greenhouse effect.
8. Our current warm period fits into a 5000 year pattern of a warm period about every 1000 years.
9. Human CO2 release warms the climate less than 0.03◦C https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245.pdf
Evidence is at Debunkingclimate.com
#3. “It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century.” (See graph, per NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/).
View the other 8 with skepticism.
Would it be too much to ask that you check my citation BEFORE answering with off topic information?
1. I said “3. Solar fits climate better than CO2” .
Had you bothered to check my citation, you would have found http://www.debunkingclimate.com/CO2_Solar_Corrlations.html and http://www.sustainableoregon.com/thesun.html.
You also said “View the other 8 with skepticism.” which indicates you are a careless researcher. Do you even know that you referred to a source that has revised their temperature data many times raising the issue of how do we know their data is correct this time, compared to next time or last time?
Do y9ou know that your source has taken thermometer data that show little/no warming and turned it into warming with “adjustments”? See http://www.debunkingclimate.com/Data_Adjustments.html
Your source also has many deceptive claims on their web site – see:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/nasa_debunk.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/nasa_graph_omission.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/Data_Adjustments.htm
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/CO2_didnt_warm_arctic.html
The fact is that we HAVE NO RELIABLE data about climate. see: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/lack_of_data.html and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/29/the-verdict-of-instrumental-methods/\
Hi Toby: So your credentials are: you are interested in the issue, you do a lot of reading, and you have strong opinions on the topic? That’s it? And you’re Jewish? Am I missing something?
Please note that I am NOT on the Board of Heartland Institute and never have been. I did attend one of their meetings in DC several years ago, though, and generally agree with most of what they write. So much for your “research” abilities. You wear you blatant biases on your sleeve, so no need to draw your attention to actual science or the advantages to having an open mind when engaging in a public discussion.
I am on the Education Committee of the CO2 Coalition, though, and you might be interested in dealing with some actual facts on these issues (I’m guessing not, though, given your statements): https://co2coalition.org/about/
Bob: From where does the CO2 Coalition get its funding? In total.
I’m a volunteer, David, like most members. Not sure where the funding comes from or why that is too important at this juncture. If anybody wants to give me some, I’ll take it. I don’t think taxpayers are providing it, as with most of the climate change industry.
Mr. Thaler:
Could you please tell those that are reading this blog what YOUR qualifications are that make you a “climate expert”?
You are very opiniated about Cliff mass but offer no proof that you have the slightest idea about what you are talking about.
As a meteorologist with academic qualification, I have studied the climate as well for many years and find no evidence that atmospheric CO2 is changing the climate and I agree with Professor Mass that recent heat waves and severe weather are not an offer of proof of human emissions of CO2 changing the climate.
A warmer tropospheric temperature compared to 100 years ago is not an offer of proof that CO2 caused it nor is citing any episodes of severe weather by themselves, in fact, if severe weather events are increasing worldwide, that is NOT an offer of proof that CO2 is causing them, but in fact, it is only proof that the temperature gradients across the lines of latitude remain strong, a phenomena that would NOT be associated with CO2 warming if it were actually occurring.
Contrary to your belief, meteorologists and those with atmospheric science backgrounds are imminently qualified to be experts on the subject of climate. All too often, I see those with Geography and Geology degrees calling themselves climate experts which is a gross exaggeration about their knowledge of climate and weather, which go together.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Chuck Wiese wrote:
As a meteorologist with academic qualification
WHAT academic qualification???
Chuck, all you have is a bachelor’ degree. Nothing special. Then you stood up on TV and read the weather tickertape for a bunch of years.
I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that you qualify as a climate expert, let alone a scientist or researcher.
So: What ARE your “academic qualifications,” Chuck?
Appell: My academic qualification is superior to yours. You have no degree in atmospheric science and it has been my experience with you that you refuse to learn any despite my efforts to present it.
Since I have sparred with you Appell, which spans a good ten years or longer, you ignore what you don’t want to hear and keep touting provably wrong nonsense. You even tried to state that “climate models” are not weather forecast models, when, in fact, that is exactly what they are only being configured for large time integrations which makes their skill and usefulness unreliable unless you jump the scientific shark with a giant leap of faith that true science could never support.
All of this nonsense from you made me wonder whether you really had a PhD in physics, which you later verified, but your ignorance of atmospheric science remains astoundingly large because of your refusal to learn anything, and further, you have published NOTHING in any climate journals yourself, but that means little when it is no longer a secret that all the so called “premier” journals reject any papers that interfere with this now religious agenda that is doing little more than protecting the $ billions in taxpayer funded money grubbing that is keeping many academics employed in this racket.
What I have offered to any is nothing but established atmospheric science, taught at every major university that offered degrees in atmospheric science, and the founding principles NEVER alluded to CO2 as being able to control Earth temperature in the presence of the Earth’s hydrological cycle. The only thing that stands between those principles since was the invention of “climate models” which for many reasons are nothing more than overrated heaps of junk with no skill in predicting the future climate. Falsification of the surface temperature records has tried to cover this up.
You know all of this by now, Appell, and yet you persist with your nonsense. As I have told many others, you are not worth trying to educate any longer because you refuse to be. It is a waste of time to try and convince you of anything. What you’re trying to do here is to get people to traffic your own blog which nobody reads because of your nonscientific nonsense and personal attacks you make on others that disagree with you and can prove as they have done many times that you are wrong about the earth’s climate.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Speaking of Appel’s blog – didn’t it used to have a different name? quark or something? I wonder why the change, or are there many like he reportedly, has many different names he uses for posts.
Thanks
JK
Mr Wiese: you’re so obsessed with academic degrees! I wonder what that’s really about.
I don’t go around saying I have “academic credentials.” Have you ever published work in peer reviewed journals?
Speaking of not learning — you’re the one who said you don’t know what’s causing global warming, but you’re sure it’s not CO2. Right there that tells anyone what they need to know about your “academic credentials” and your understanding of climate science.
Toby, thanks for explaining why you are poorly informed about climate – you are relying of a blog run by the climate “scientists” whose wrongdoing was exposed by their own emails in the “climategate” scandal.
See selections of the emails at: http://www.debunkingclimate dot com/SelectedEmails.html
Dear Toby,
Science is not an exercise in consensus. It is an exercise in logic and evidence, between those with sufficient education and knowledge to participate. The 1931 book “Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein” (One Hundred Authors against Einstein) drew the classic response from Einstein, “Why one hundred? One man can prove me wrong.”
As to qualifications, you fail to understand that scientists are versatile people. The great Alfred Wegener was an astrophysicist like me. But he considered himself a meteorologist and did his greatest work in geology. He was the first to prove “Continental Drift.” That was something that the geological establishment fought for 60 years, until the discovery of Atlantic Sea Floor Spreading.
Those you probably consider “climate scientists,” like James Hansen and Michael Mann got their academic training in other areas. Hansen got his training in astrophysics. Mann has degrees in physics and geology, is a professor of meteorology and studies tree rings! None of this is unusual.
University of Washington Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Cliff Mass is about as close to a pure meteorologist/climatologist as you will find. His interests range from weather forecasting to regional climate modeling. And because he has maintained a strong interest in subjects where his scholarship can be verified (like weather forecasting), he has retained a strong sense of reality. That does not endear him to those given to great fantasies with climate change.
Professor Mass and I do not always agree. But I am always interested in what he has to say.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
Like Bob Zybach, you too are associated with The Heartland Institute. Indeed, your reputation as a climate denialist is quite deep. Your organization has a history of anti-intellectualism, reactionary politics, and outright denialism.
Your attempt to conflate meteorology and climatology does not give Cliff Mass the credibility you wish him to have. And your allusion to “great fantasies with climate change” does the same for you.
I had enough of these exchanges 25 years ago. I thought we were done with them.
Have a good evening.
Hi Toby,
Your research skills seem to be lacking. Both Dr. Bob Zybach and I contribute time and effort to the CO2 Coalition, a group of more than 125 high level scientists and economists who actually know something about carbon dioxide and climate. We are not legislative analysts for the City of Seattle who attempt to formulate public policy, based on science they know nothing about.
Science is a very complex subject that takes years of schooling to master. Your bio on Linkedin makes no mention of any education in the physical sciences. You need to make clear to everyone that you completely lack credentials to discuss this subject. That is obvious from your comments, but you still need to clearly state that you have no expertise on this subject and not pretend otherwise.
As to the Heartland Institute, the CO2 Coalition has helped them with their Climate Conferences. When I showed up at one event, they even had a badge for me that read “Employee.” I immediately asked their then President Joe Bast where I could find my paycheck! He unceremoniously removed the “Employee” from my name tag! Too bad.
I am one of ten Directors of the CO2 Coalition. Others include Dr. Patrick Moore of ‘Greenpeace’ fame, Princeton Professor of Physics Will Happer who is our Chairman, Dr. John Clauser who is the 2022 Nobel Laureate in Physics, Dr. Jan Breslow who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Hugh Kendrick who is a Fellow of the American Physical Society, Brazilian Chemist Dr. Rafaella Nascimento, Professor of Economics Bruce Everett, and others. We all serve without compensation. And some have donated considerable money to our efforts.
Nobel Laureate Clauser has taken down the entire Global Warming paradigm by pointing out that clouds provide a powerful negative feedback that is 100 times more powerful than CO2. Clouds easily compensate for slowly rising atmospheric CO2.
However, without any training in the physical sciences, you have no hope of understanding this. You still play word games with ‘weather versus climate.’ That is juvenile.
One of your supporters on Linkedin said of you:
“For someone with his degree of intelligence, with his gift for analysis and his reliability, his humility is unexpected. I’ve seen him treat everyone with respect, regardless of their orientation, regardless of whether they are friend or foe in the arena of issues.”
Perhaps it is time to live up to that assessment and stop insulting the scientific community.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
“Nobel Laureate Clauser has taken down the entire Global Warming paradigm by pointing out that clouds provide a powerful negative feedback that is 100 times more powerful than CO2.”
In what journal was this published? I’d like to read it. I searched “clauser +clouds” on Google Scholar but there were no results.
Because it contradicts over a decade of climate science that shows the cloud feedback is positive. Including observations.
“Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming,” Paulo Ceppi and Peer Nowack, PNAS 118 (30) e2026290118, July 19, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026290118
toby wrote–” Your organization has a history of anti-intellectualism, reactionary politics, and outright denialism.”
Please supply an actual example of
“anti-intellectualism”
and of “reactionary politics”
and of “outright denialism”
Speaking of “outright denialism”. Please comment on your apparent “outright denialism” of the following FACTS:
1. Previous Holocene warm periods were warmer than now WITHOUT man’s CO2.
2. Solar fits climate better than CO2
3. There is nothing unusual about today’s climate compared to before man emitted CO2.
4. Recent warming is a same rate as the late 1800s but now with much more of man’s CO2.
(More of a cause should cause more effect.)
5. Man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous warming.
6. Man emits only 5% of annual CO2. Plus CO2 only causes 9-26% of greenhouse effect.
7. Human CO2 release warms the climate less than 0.03◦C https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245.pdf
Evidence is at Debunkingclimate.com
Gordon Fulks wrote:
University of Washington Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Cliff Mass is about as close to a pure meteorologist/climatologist as you will find.
Nope. Cliff Mass makes elementary errors, like this one:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2021/07/an-obviously-false-claim-from-cliff-mass.html
Gordon, while there’s a great deal of consensus in science, the word is used for policy purposes, not scientific purposes. It was introduced because the world doesn’t have forever to debate climate science until numbers are known to 5-sigma.
All you have to do to get rid of the world “consensus” is show that the consensus about AGW is wrong, and get it published in a good journal to convince the scientific community you’re right. Same as with any other important discovery. But this is the one thing none of you ever does.
Hi again David,
Just a quick note to people reading these threads. This is yet another climate alarmist posting attacks on the opposition instead of posting actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
I believe there is a reason for this patten and that is that the climate zealots HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. Because if such evidence existed, surely they would have provided it by now.
David, it’s been over TEN YEARS and we are still waiting!!!!
PS, while on the subject of evidence,did you ever find any real evidence that Katrina was caused (or intensified) warming from by man’s CO2? Did you ever retract you claims on this subject?
Thanks
JK
“Mann has degrees in physics and geology….”
“Geology & Geophysics”
https://michaelmann.net/content/about
Same thing though — you don’t need a degree in “climate science” to be able to do it well. Emphasis on the word “well.”
This comment is totally uninformed and quite ignorant about my background. I have published dozens of papers on climate topics. I have received several grants from NSF and other funding agencies on climate subjects. I currently have a grant on regional CLIMATE modeling. My key mentor was Dr. Stephen Schneider, one of the leading climatologists of the 20th century. I published several climate papers with him. My academic background is identical to those who do climate work. I would suggest that Toby do a search on google scholar for the papers I have published on climate. And then offer an apology for both ignorance and name-calling.
Dear Professor Mass,
Thanks for setting the record straight.
Toby Thaler has been negligent in researching your background, as well as researching Global Warming.
You are correct that he should offer an apology.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Cliff:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2021/07/an-obviously-false-claim-from-cliff-mass.html
Toby, since you are such a climate expert, can you explain why this DOES NOT show that there is nothing unusual about our climate & thus nothing to explain with man’s CO2:
5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warm period
4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
1000 years later, came our current warm period.
Climate alarmists are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years to stay on schedule. Not very believable.
The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and thus CO2 is not causing warming or any unusual climate effects that are frequently blamed on warming.
Evidence that those warm periods actually occurred:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/climatehistory.html
Evidence that the Roman & Medieval warm periods were global:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/warm_periods.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/page216.html
Toby I’m coming to this discussion late, but .. I think you are hitting on something important. We are talking about something at the intersection of plant science (fuels) or veg ecology, whatever you want to call it, fire science, meteorology and climate science, plus land use and fire suppression strategy history. Now, how could climate modelers know all this? Of course they don’t!
Wouldn’t a sensible approach be to round up all the relevant disciplines and let them speak and hash out their different understandings?
We often say on The Smokey Wire about tree cutting “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Please tell me why this wouldn’t be equally true for climate modelers, who get their funding from .. climate research $.
Finally, what’s up with your comments about the Wall Street Journal? Guilt by association? Association with whom? I’m not a fan of the NYT nor WaPo but occasionally they do have relatively unbiased stories with good information.
Meteorologists make predictions every day about things that are obvious and measurable and are proven right or wrong (accountable) to the rest of us.. that’s a different standard of accountability than publishing reviewed by unpaid peer reviewers who are part of the same club.
Shout out to them!
Hard core deniers post things like “The entire climate scam…” and “I have studied the climate as well for many years and find no evidence that atmospheric CO2 is changing the climate…” They want to keep the issue open to debate, to cast doubt on the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Engaging with them suits their purpose (and of the fossil fuel industry) and I won’t do it any more. They are not deserving of the engagement or of my time.
Mass does do climate modeling and he is an excellent meteorologist. But he has a tendency to say about specific climate events that they are not caused by global warming. Such as in his WSJ opinion piece. He is skillful at acknowledging that climate change is real while at the same time denying that it has much to do with what’s actually happening around us, including the drying and burning of forests all around the world. Mass has a tendency to oversimplify and make absolute statements that do not reflect critical thinking.
The deniers support Cliff Mass because of his repeated refusal to acknowledge apparent or likely causation. Climate deniers are anti-democratic; they support willful ignorance. Deniers are quintessential non-critical thinkers. I argued with the deniers at some length in various forums when public opinion was still not squarely landing on the obvious: anthropogenic global warming is real and it’s a major (if not wicked) problem. Now that most people, including increasing percentages of Republicans (especially younger and suburban), accept that reality, I won’t give deniers the time or space any more.
Sharon, I am sorry you seem to be sympathetic to the climate deniers. Do you really think it’s helpful to have people call the best available science a scam? And attack a poster (me) who points out that saying “there is no evidence” does not reflect an objective scientific perspective?
Cliff Mass: I’ll apologize when you stop printing “there is no evidence” of causal connections in op-eds. I.e., when you stop feeding the deniers.
Toby wrote—“Cliff Mass: I’ll apologize when you stop printing “there is no evidence” of causal connections in op-eds. I.e., when you stop feeding the deniers.”
Please provide actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
Please note:
1-Evidence of warming, unusual weather, storms, floods IS NOT evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause.
2-Correlation is not causation
3-An expert’s assertion, or government’s assertion is not evidence. It is hearsay.
4-Consensus of experts, Polls or Majority belief is not evidence
5-Climate models are not evidence.
6–Warmest weather in 100 years means it was warmer 100 years ago when CO2 was lower.
7-If an event is NOT unprecedented, then you have to explain why whatever caused the earlier events is NOT the cause of the latest occurrence of that event.
Evidence is actual data PRO AND CON with reasoned analysis and logical conclusions while FULLY CONSIDERING OPPOSING evidence.
Hey Toby, its been two weeks since I asked that you show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming and you have NOT.
Is that an admission that there is no such evidence and you know it?
Is that an admission that you are actually one of Apple’s claimed
many sock puppets?
It’s interesting that on a random website about forest management, a negative comment about Cliff Mass brings out an army of defenders of him, for people who I mostly have never seen comment here before.
Poke the bear, and the bear’s network pokes back. Wonder how everyone found out so fast….
Anon: Part of this is comes from the fact that many of us who have a considerable body of knowledge about atmospheric science, physics and climate are fed up with this sort of blathering nonsense that people like Toby Thaler put out.
People like this that have entered positions of political power are wrecking this country with their climate insanity. The policy makers in Washington state and elsewhere across the country in the Biden Administration are systematically destroying the US power grid and trying by banning the use of things like natural gas and coal power generation (while legally trying to block the use of nuclear power generation) and forcing the public into public transportation or the use of electric vehicles which will overload the
electric grid in the direction these incompetent people are driving the country and lead to brownouts, blackouts and power rationing. And electric vehicles are substandard compared to the reliable internal combustion engines and contrary to belief of some, they are not part of a “clean energy” system.
In truth, we get NOTHING for all of this. The climate or atmospheric CO2 levels will not change as a result of any of it. This is sheer madness.
But ask Toby. He will tell you it’s all necessary for “savin’ the planet” while people like this deliberately and unconscionably scare our youth into doing crazy and stupid things like engaging in “climate strikes” from school and getting egged on by the likes of the Toby’s of the world to file lawsuits against state governments for the supposed and false claims that they haven’t done enough to mitigate the effects of “climate change”.
This is all sheer loonacy. It has to stop before these political crazies ruin this great nation.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Thank you Chuck,
Because there are so few scientists out there and even fewer who are competent, we have to defend the profession against imposters like Toby. As an attorney, he should realize that licensing requirements keep the quacks out of many professions to prevent public harm.
The one notable exception is science where nothing stops the Tobys of this world from claiming knowledge where they have little. With a bit of bravado, some knowledge of terminology, and constant attacks on real scientists, they assert a right to practice science. Since they are really political operatives they have no qualms about selling snake oil.
Enforcement of some sort of standards for scientists is left to scientists. We would like to see that someone who is spouting off understand the basics and preferably have an educational background relevant to the topic. Toby flunks both tests.
If the individual is also defaming competent scientists in his attempt to assert politics over science, he will incur our wrath. Again Toby is a great example.
Thank you Chuck for helping us expose another political operative pretending to be a scientist.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Hi Anon: Internet communications, mostly email and another blog. Toby made a personal attack on a well-known public figure and word quickly got out. Also — this isn’t a “random website.” It’s been in existence for more than 10 years and has 1000 subscribers. Pretty focused and well-known.
Note: No one has ever “seen” you because you are hiding behind a pseudonym. The names “you” don’t recognize are real people. I usually don’t respond to fake names, but your question was interesting. For all I know, you are actually “Toby” going undercover!
Noe; “Anon” is not me. I’ve put myself out there for all you yo-yos to shoot at; I’m not going to start hiding behind a pseudonym now.
Anon wrote – “Poke the bear, and the bear’s network pokes back.”
Yeah, we are sick and tired of climate zealots who refuse to show any evidence that we have a climate crisis (but love to attack people for asking for evidence), and whant to re-order our society to an unattainable goal that will harm or kill literally billions of people. Such societal changes require a very high standard of evidence, but there is none as far as i can tell.
Anon wrote—“Wonder how everyone found out so fast….'”
We are just one of many loose associations of scientists and well informed people. For instance my web site has a collection of highly credible information that debunks claims of a “climate crisis”:
DebunkingClimate.com
My motive is the self interest of not being able to afford energy to heat my home, or to travel, or to afford the massive inflation that will result from proposed solutions to the non problem of climate. Especially since there is good evidence that there is NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE to fossil fuels – wind and solar are NOT CAPABLE of powering a modern society.
Of course I also find it intolerable that the climate zealots already are getting thousands of poverty stricken, third world residents, killed by being forced to remain in poverty by denying them fossil fueled electricity.
As far as I can tell, there is NO PLACE IN THE WORLD that has adequate electricity supply with only wind and solar.
“Poke the bear” — Yup, I did that. And look at them go!
toby wrote–“Yup, I did that. And look at them go!”
WOW – what a contribution to a rational debate!
Why are you refusing to post actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming?
I can only assume that PROVES that you DO NOT KNOW of any actual evidence that man’s Co2 is causing serious global warming. Why would any honest person continue to insist that we have a climate problem, but cannot show any evidence to support that claim?
Is it just a (liberal) religion to you? One indication of that is YOUR following the climate criminals exposed by climategate.
Yup, along with your evaporating credibility and self-proclaimed authority. Do you know what bears call trolls, Toby? “Lunch.” Or “snack,” depending on the size of the troll or the bear.
I know I said I was going to stop responding to your abrasive nonsense, Toby, but you’re too good a troll — and then I also learned you were a taxpayer-funded lawyer as well. So hopefully this is my last response — but maybe I underestimate your demonstrated trolling ability. Congratulations on that. I’m sure you’re a fine lawyer, too.
Toby: Your LinkedIn bio says you are a lawyer…a Legislative analyst for the City of Seattle.
This means you have no background that demonstrates you have any ability to understand climate or atmospheric science. Your repeated blathering of nonsense reveals who you are and what you represent, which is nothing of scientific value.
When those that blather on about climate like you can’t answer simple and reasonable questions for dialogue, your defense to the non-answers you give is to insult and label others (climate deniers) who are asking you to defend your claims because you have nothing to offer that does. You deflect by insult and labeling under a fake cover that you somehow are in the know with a superior understanding of things.
Those of us who can debate and articulate our positions on the climate system have seen this sort of childish nonsense play itself out before. It is nothing but cheap political rhetoric that pathetically tries to pass itself off as science.
IMO, you are a dishonest and fanatical climate hysteric, grounded with scientific nonsense and ignorance that couldn’t defend your position to any in the know. You are simply not worth the time to convince of anything. But if you did want to challenge any of us in a public forum, you would quickly make a fool out of yourself, and I always leave that invitation open if you want to give it a shot.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Hi Toby: Rest assured, this is my last response to you on this topic and probably most others as well, but there are a couple of things you’ve just stated that I think should be pointed out.
First are the persistent name-calling and humility issues. Others have called this out in some detail, and I recommend you pay personal attention to those weaknesses if you would like serious people to take you seriously. Then maybe you can address your obvious lack of understanding of science if you want to continue conversations in that arena.
Second, is your continued juvenile attack on Cliff Mass (but you did at least acknowledge his excellence as a meteorologist) when you wrote: “He is skillful at acknowledging that climate change is real while at the same time denying that it has much to do with what’s actually happening around us, including the drying and burning of forests all around the world. Mass has a tendency to oversimplify and make absolute statements that do not reflect critical thinking.”
My PhD is specifically in the study of catastrophic wildfires, of which I have written and conducted research for more than 40 years. During that time I have found zero evidence that “climate change” — and particularly the boogieman “anthropogenic climate change” — has anything to do with increased wildfire events. None, and I’ve written and lectured for many years on that conclusion. Seasonal weather, yes; climate change, nope. I do know that my findings and conclusions are widely challenged by many “peer reviewed” modelers, but that’s science for you. And government funding (Eisenhower was right).
To immediately follow your simplistic, absolute statement regarding wildfires in such a way as to “reflect” zero “critical thinking” skills — and then castigate Mass in the very next sentence for those exact same failings shows a serious need for introspection. Or at least refined proof-reading skills.
So that’s it. I won’t comment on your goofy politics or any further on your stupid name-calling. They’re a matter of public record, so I quit. You’re welcome.
Dear Toby,
It is obvious that you cannot defend any aspect of the Global Warming paradigm, when engaged by actual scientists. Hence you default to endless name-calling. It may surprise you that ad hominems are not the way science is conducted. You need to read up on logical fallacies. Aristotle pointed them out several thousand years ago.
Real scientists deal in logic and evidence. And we never tire of discussing the reasoning that leads to the conclusions we reach. That is how science is audited and improved.
Science is more than a good story that serves your politics. It has to be a true story that can actually be verified. That is why the first scientific society, the Royal Society, chose ‘Nullius in verba’ as its motto. It means ‘Take nobody’s word for it.’ That expressed the desire of the Fellows to avoid the domination of authority and to make decisions based on experiments.
I realize that the Scientific Method is currently out of favor with those who want to spin tall tales. But real scientists realize how important it is.
For authoritative information on many climate issues, please visit
https://co2coalition.org/
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
I’d like to say one more thing about this discussion. Toby makes mention of associations with the Heartland Institute. Right now I am trying to get some funding to analyze some NEPA data on CE’s. I would do it with a respected academic but they need funding to live on, they just can’t work on my fave topics. IF someone funded it, I couldn’t be picky as to whom. But you would have to trust me and hizzer to do good work, have it reviewed using open peer review and so on. Bottom line, if I were to be funded by, say PERC, (wishful thinking) for this, would that taint me for the rest of my life? Because that sounds more like believing in the purity of teams, rather than us working together with everyone to jointly seek the truth inasmuch as it can be known.
Why do advocacy groups fund research and what to they do when it doesn’t give them what they want? Do they explain this in a contract?
Is this outside of the natural range of variability? The experts have been able to assign probabilities associated with the role of climate change to many “natural” disasters, and maybe they’ll do that here.
However, I’d be interested in your framing that does NOT involve “quitting fossil fuels.” If that is a necessary part of any solution, then I think it’s hard to criticize those who simplistically cite fossil fuels as a cause for everything.
IF you say “wildfires are a problem in Canada.
Then some are managed in boxes, some are not. The managed ones are not a problem, so..
“Some wildfires in Canada are a problem”
Which ones?
If they are not to be a problem, they must be suppressed. What do air tankers, fire trucks and transportation for crews have in common? The use of fossil fuels.
In the near term, quitting fossil fuels doesn’t work.
In the long term…??? There are likely to be troublesome fires, although perhaps fewer.
As I understand it, there’s not really a natural range of variability for climate.. it depends on where you start- a hundred years ago? a thousand? the last two decades?. Yes, they can assign probabilities as to “some of our models predict that this pattern will become more 10% more likely by 2050” but let’s just say there’s a lot of assumptions in there. We can trust that all those assumptions are correct, but conveniently most climate modelers don’t do sensitivity analysis on their assumptions.. so..
As I’ve also observed the climate biz over the last 30 years, I’d say that’s why many folks in neighboring disciplines are skeptical. And some of us old folks. Because the way models handle uncertainty is very different from the way other disciplines handle it.
Mr. Thaler:
Could you please tell those that are reading this blog what YOUR qualifications are that make you a “climate expert”?
You are very opiniated about Cliff Mass but offer no proof that you have the slightest idea about what you are talking about.
As a meteorologist with academic qualification, I have studied the climate as well for many years and find no evidence that atmospheric CO2 is changing the climate and I agree with Professor Mass that recent heat waves and severe weather are not an offer of proof of human emissions of CO2 changing the climate.
A warmer tropospheric temperature compared to 100 years ago is not an offer of proof that CO2 caused it nor is citing any episodes of severe weather by themselves, in fact, if severe weather events are increasing worldwide, that is NOT an offer of proof that CO2 is causing them, but in fact, it is only proof that the temperature gradients across the lines of latitude remain strong, a phenomena that would NOT be associated with CO2 warming if it were actually occurring.
Contrary to your belief, meteorologists and those with atmospheric science backgrounds are imminently qualified to be experts on the subject of climate. All too often, I see those with Geography and Geology degrees calling themselves climate experts which is a gross exaggeration about their knowledge of climate and weather, which go together.
By the way, are you aware that one of Professor Mass’s mentors who contributed to the publishing of his many climate papers was Dr. Steven Schneider? he was one of the most respected scientists on climate of all those in his time.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Toby,
Chuck wrote that “Your LinkedIn bio says you are a lawyer…a Legislative analyst for the City of Seattle.”
As such you must know what constitutes evidence.
Why have you NOT shown any evidence that man’s cO2 is causing serious global warming?
Instead you attack people.
From that I believe the ONLY logical conclusion to be that YOU DO NOT KNOW OF ANY ACTUAL EViDENCE that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
Please prove me wrong by posting real evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
I will not restate what evidence is, because as a lawyer, you surely know all about evidence. Please show us the evidence.
thanks
JK
Dear Denier Crowd (“Mob” might be more accurate):
Some of your comments [with a few responses]:
“you are poorly informed about climate – you are relying of a blog run by the climate “scientists” whose wrongdoing was exposed by their own emails in the “climategate” scandal.'”
“Your research skills seem to be lacking. Both Dr. Bob Zybach and I contribute time and effort to the CO2 Coalition, a group of more than 125 high level scientists and economists who actually know something about carbon dioxide and climate.”
[Response from Wiki: “The CO2 Coalition is a nonprofit advocacy organization in the United States founded in 2015. Its claims conflict with the scientific consensus on climate change and it spreads misinformation about climate change.” I.e., Same denier nonsense repackaged.]
“Nobel Laureate Clauser has taken down the entire Global Warming paradigm.”
“Please provide actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.”
“The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and thus CO2 is not causing warming or any unusual climate effects that are frequently blamed on warming.”
“many of us who have a considerable body of knowledge about atmospheric science, physics and climate are fed up with this sort of blathering nonsense that people like Toby Thaler put out. …But ask Toby. He will tell you it’s all necessary for “savin’ the planet””
[I will say nothing of the sort. My perspective and opinion is that anthropogenic global warming is merely a reflection of other serious problems. I think Will Steffen and others’ work on ‘planetary boundaries’ is a more holistic summary of our situation. To use a biological term, we are in overshoot. That, together with serious problems in the global political-economic realm, puts us at great risk. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.014 is a pretty good analysis.]
“This is all sheer loonacy. It has to stop before these political crazies ruin this great nation.”
[What do you suggest? Elect Trump again in 2024?]
“there are so few scientists out there and even fewer who are competent, we have to defend the profession against imposters like Toby.”
[Oh, you think my criticism of Cliff Mass on an obscure forestry blog is going to upset the apple cart? That’s funny. Also, I have never claimed to be a scientist. I’m a policy analyst with a license to practice law.]
“Those of us who can debate and articulate our positions on the climate system have seen this sort of childish nonsense play itself out before. It is nothing but cheap political rhetoric that pathetically tries to pass itself off as science.”
[I never said I was a scientist. You don’t have to be a scientist to read and understand the literature. No matter how much you all rant and rave the fact remains that most people in the world now know and agree with the majority of climate and related scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real and threatens to significant alter the global ecosystem, along with other causes. That change is already under way, much as you would wish it to not be so.]
“we are sick and tired of climate zealots who refuse to show any evidence that we have a climate crisis (but love to attack people for asking for evidence), and whant to re-order our society to an unattainable goal that will harm or kill literally billions of people. … My motive is the self interest of not being able to afford energy to heat my home, or to travel, or to afford the massive inflation that will result from proposed solutions to the non problem of climate.”
[Ah, now we see some core denier rationale. Unfortunately (or fortunately), human society is going to reorder itself to a much lower level of energy throughput regardless of your desires or blog postings. I suspect you don’t accept that there are limits to the amount of carbon based energy (fossil fuels) humans will be able to put to work. There are such limits: on the human scale the Earth is largely a closed system material wise, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is real.]
“Especially since there is good evidence that there is NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE to fossil fuels – wind and solar are NOT CAPABLE of powering a modern society.”
[I agree with this statement if you assume “modern society”‘s per capital level of consumption. Since fossil fuel sources are limited, as neither solar, nor wind, nor hydro, nor fission or fusion appear capable of replacing it, the question is what we should be doing. I suggest working to degrow the economy back to a long term sustainable level by reducing per capita energy and resource consumption levels. That probably requires a significantly reduced population, which is likely to happen one way or another.]
“[you are a] dishonest and fanatical climate hysteric, grounded with scientific nonsense and ignorance that couldn’t defend your position to any in the know. You are simply not worth the time to convince of anything.”
[Aside from your insult, I also agree with you on the last point: I’m going to try my best not to spend any more time here re-litigating two centuries of greenhouse science with any of you. BTW, I am being far more insulted by you all than anything I said about Cliff Mass. Cheers.]
Sharon: There is a difference between “skeptical” and what you see in the string of deniers’ posts.
Toby wrote–“You don’t have to be a scientist to read and understand the literature. …. anthropogenic global warming is real and threatens to significant alter the global ecosystem…That change is already under way, much as you would wish it to not be so”
Toby, why do you make such claims WITHOUT BEING WILLING (or able) TO SHOW any supporting evidence?
AGAIN, please show us actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
Dear Toby,
There is really no point in trying to carry on a conversation with you, because you do not care about the science that should underlie all discussions about climate. Climate is an extremely complex subject, not just a political game for amateurs.
You did note above my comment about the 2022 Nobel Laureate in Physics, John Clauser, who provides a very simple explanation of why the tiny effect of CO2 cannot possibly be driving any substantial climate change. He notes that CLOUDS are a huge negative feedback in the climate system that works against any increase in temperature from the CO2 Greenhouse Effect:
https://co2coalition.org/publications/nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors/
If you have considered any of the actual science, you know that CO2 is supposed to drive more water vapor into the atmosphere, increasing the warming from CO2. That positive feedback is what those on your side tout. But they fail to go the next step and consider that white cumulus clouds result from excess water vapor, thereby reflecting sunlight and keeping the planet cool. Clouds are far more powerful than the Greenhouse Effect from CO2 and water vapor.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Toby
You wonder why folks were so upset with you. Well, it really isn’t about climate change. You have no real background in the subject or in science, so yours is an uninformed opinion. You can believe what you want. What was problematic is that you immediately went to personal attacks on folks you disagreed with. You started with me–suggesting I knew nothing about climate and then you revved up with issues about my blog about Seattle violence. You did not respond with scientific arguments but name calling. Then when some folks defended me, you went after them with your names calling. You suggested they were undemocratic for calling you on your errors and then repeatedly termed them “deniers”, a repulsive term that plays off the Holocaust (ironically you said you were Jewish). It is a hurtful term and I hope you don’t use it again.
A subtlety that I don’t think you appreciate is that I don’t agree on a lot of things suggested by the group that challenged you. I think climate change is a real issue and the impacts are there. But I can engage and debate with them in a polite way, which is the way of science, which thrives on statements that arre rigorously challenged. I really wish you could learn to follow the same approach…cliff
I don’t wonder at all.
I know you don’t agree with them on every point, but it is clear that you have gotten in bed with the denier crowd; anyone can read it on your blog.
Carry on.
Toby wrote—“you have gotten in bed with the denier crowd;”
Toby,
You call us the denier crowd, but you and your “believers” HAVE NEVER shown actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
I have asked you (and MANY OTHERS) to show that evidence and you never have, presumably because you are unable to.
Why do you believe we have a climate problem of some sort WITHOUT SHOWING ANY EVIDENCE?
Is that how you advise the city of Seattle – evidence free guesswork based on illiterate opinions from progressives?
Perhaps that is why Seattle has a runaway crime problem. Unaffordable housing. Tents full of drug addicts lining you streets.
Did you advise Seattle to permit the “summer of love” that resulted in several deaths?
Feel free to prove me wrong by providing actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
Dear Toby,
Professor Mass can think like a scientist, even when immersed in the highly political culture you represent.
You have no hope of doing so. And remarkably, you cannot even think like an attorney, where evidence and polite behavior are required.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Hi, Toby
Since you mentioned “the denier crowd”, I want to welcome YOU to the “climate fact denier crowd”:
Why do you appear to deny that:
1. Our current climate started warming 200 years BEFORE man’s CO2 emissions started to rise . NOT before.
2. Previous Holocene warm periods were warmer than now.
3. Solar fits climate better than CO2
4. There is nothing unusual about today’s climate compared to before man emitted CO2.
5. Recent warming is a same rate as the late 1800s but now with much more of man’s CO2. (More of a cause should cause more effect.)
6. Man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous warming.
7. Man emits only 5% of annual CO2. Plus CO2 only causes 9-26% of greenhouse effect.
See DebunkingClimate.com for evidence
Why do you refuse to post any actual evidence for you claims about climate?
I think most of us on Smokey Wire are not interested in spending much time rehashing climate skepticism by folks representing their admittedly “self-interest.” Anyone who does can probably find a rebuttal to any of this in skepticalscience.com. (I’d actually like to hear what the deniers have to say about this website, which I recall being recommended by a respected climate scientist.)
As an example here is what it says about “climategate” (which it refers to as a “pseudoscandal”).
https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-a-year-later.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science
Jonathan: Please don’t use the term “denier” when referring to scientists who are skeptical of the pronouncements of the climate crisis crowd, apparently including yourself. It is a demeaning term and has no place in rational discussion. That type of name-calling puts you in the Toby category of respondents. Not attractive, and few will listen — maybe excepting fellow believers.
If you think “most of us on Smokey wire are not interested,” then don’t read. Not sure of what your assumption is based on, or what you mean by “admittedly “‘self interest'” — but I assume you have placed me in your “denier” category and I’m curious what you think I “admitted?”
No time or particular interest in visiting a website which you may “recall” was “recommended by a respected [nameless] climate scientist.” Recommended by who? Respected by who? “Climate scientist” or agency modeler? It is not difficult finding a “rebuttal,” but maybe it would be to your advantage to visit the website yourself to determine what needs to be rebutted. I, for one, am not going on a fishing expedition based on a vague recommendation from someone who has called me a vile name and mocked my perspective. Why would I?
“My motive is the self interest of not being able to afford energy to heat my home, or to travel, or to afford the massive inflation that will result from proposed solutions to the non problem of climate.” Jim Karlock (above) (This argument sounds a lot like the sky-is-falling claims that climate change deniers accuse climate protectors of.)
“Denier: a person who denies something.” I think there is plenty enough being denied here to warrant that label. Sorry if you take it personally.
Jonathan Haber: “skeptical science” is a provenly fraudulent website whose owner, John Cook, from Australia, lied about and got caught concerning the “97% consensus” claim that Toby Thaler touts as his version of why his beliefs are valid. In the article I link, Cook was also caught posing as another scientist, Lubos Motl, to try and defame him and his reputation.
I have signed up on the “skeptical science” site and tried to correct their errors they make on climate and debate their so called “scientists” that post regularly. It is a waste of time because “skeptical science” does not allow any dissent to their propaganda. If you question or try to engage in pointing out mistakes, they censor your comments by deleting them. They also selectively omit words in your comments which then gives your attempted post an entirely different meaning. It is always one or the other with this crowd if you challenge their fake assertions. This is willful and deliberate deception with omission, be in facts of the truth or strong scientific evidence offered that their hypothesis is wrong.
It is no wonder that those like you and Toby Thaler are so misguided and duped. You are simply not getting presented with the facts and accepting blogs like this as authoritarian because of the circumstances are equivalent to signing off on this now rotted “science” that is equivalent to Lysenkoism in the old Soviet Union that destroyed Soviet biology. Look it up. Censorship and malicious behavior towards your opponents is NOT the practice of science. It is the hijacking of science.
You call your rotted out science “mainstream and consensus” when in fact, the only thing that stands between the founding principles from atmospheric science and today was the invention of failed climate models whose skill level has been lied about. The founding principles from atmospheric science taught at every major university before “climate models” were invented never concluded that atmospheric CO2 could be controlling on Earth temperature or climate. I was a student of those principles and to date they have not been disproven.
The models don’t work and can’t work because of the mathematical and physical limitations that are contained within them and the fact that there is not enough known about the climate system even if these limitations didn’t exist to model it. And yet lies about the skill level has led this country down a path of disaster with public policy making.
When you say that my interests are self-oriented and thereby self-centered you are speaking like a true fool. The horrific path the incompetent political class is taking this country with “green energy” directives is going to be disastrous on the already rapidly rising cost of energy and our electric grid is being destroyed. This will affect everyone’s life, including yours, and if you are stupid enough to think these sacrifices are necessary, then I would ask that you answer these questions:
1.) What will the new atmospheric CO2 level be when they are all implemented?
2.) What will the new Earth temperature be? How much cooling will result?
3.) How many yearly hurricanes will we get? Snowstorms? Floods? Heat waves? Droughts? Windstorms? Tornados?
Please show your calculations and assumptions you made to make them. When I ask these so called “climate scientists” these same questions, they never answer them. They ignore them. If a “scientist” can’t answer, then you have no business moving forward with “climate policy” or suggesting to do so.
If the “science” is as good on your side as you think, you need to answer those questions before destroying and entire economy and standard of living. Otherwise, you can live in squaller by yourself if you think this will make a difference and is “savin’ the planet”. I don’t want any part of this and neither do millions of other Americans. This means the selfishness is really coming from the control freaks like you and Toby who have a political agenda that is self-serving to either keeping your job or advancing a special interest that the majority of Americans are not participating in.
Here is the truth about “skeptical science” and the liar who runs it, John Cook.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/
Here are some articles about destruction of the electrical grid. I authored the first one:
https://redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2021/07/01/green-energy-uber-alles-say-oregons-lunatic-democrats-n403701
https://mailchi.mp/93e0334c164e/unleash-prosperity-hotline-867920?e=4d67924665
See item 2.
One last thing. Because of your ignorance about climate, and your so far refusal to accept scientific facts, if there is an applicable use of the word “climate denier” it in truth applies to you, not us. Look in the mirror.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Jonathan Haber wrote ” Anyone who does can probably find a rebuttal to any of this in skepticalscience.com.”
It is really sad to see another person being made a fool by Cook & his merry band of liars at skeptical science. If you have any interest in the truth, please take a look at DebunkingSkepticalScience.com.
I put this on debunkingclimate.com/97percen_%20of_scientists.html:
“In Cooks own words (emphasis added):
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
For details see: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea\
(Including the lower level of explicit endorsements, Cook’s real number is 8% (999/12280). If you want to stretch the truth to include implications, then you still only get 32% (3933/12280).)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+forest+fires+smoke&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&as_ylo=2010&as_yhi=
Dear Toby,
Catastrophic forest fires are nothing new. Neither are hurricanes and tornadoes. Yet the uninformed constantly attribute all of them to “climate change.” That is nonsense.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Yikes. The last time I saw this level of comments from outside posters was when Matthew L linked to Hanson and Halsey’s comments in the middle of the 2020 wildfire season.
I can say it again, makes you wonder when alllllll the posts and topics on Smokey Wire generate little to no comments (aside from certain hardcore commenters), that certain ones blow up (“Agenda Driven Comments”????).
And no, Bob, I am not all the things you say just because I am Anon – you could see the previous responses I have given to Deane and others about this. I have my reasons. Must be nice to be from a previous generation, or trust fund, to not have to worry about your next paycheck and someday wanting to own a couple acres of land have a home.
Personally, I think Toby is a hack, and works with a giant hack in Seattle. Personally, I think Bob Z is nothing more than a sociologist/historian who gloats about a PhD that is the same as an undergrad BA. Personally, I think Andy H was right that “planning” 30 years out to manage National Forests is absurd (and just a way to make jobs for people with BA’s and law degrees). Personally, I think John H is far too obsessed with “planning” and “law” and never understood what it is like in the woods and being boots on the ground. Personally, I think Cliff Mass is captured by his own persona and feelings of being persecuted.
So, sure, I deserve some s*** for those thoughts, but no, I am not going to jeopardize my career and life to put my name up on a blog that 99.8% of the country doesn’t care about, but some people in power in the resource field do care about, and someone will get butthurt and find a way to fire or demote me.
That’s where it must be nice to be Mr Mass, who can say and do whatever he wants without fear (contrary to his little blog opinions on this), as a Prof with tenure. Mr Mass also has a long history of armchair quarterbacking on natural resource/wildfire related stuff, that kinda is a poor look and ill informed, but oh well. The only reason he is commenting here, is because Seattle is a black hole where rational thought goes to die, and people judge themselves on how much they can “win” on the internet.
………….My input to the actual topic at hand – does Canada, and/or its provinces, keep a fire history record? Like perimeters, burn severity? I am very curious about past fire history in the area, size, timing, etc. I know severity is mostly limited to 1984 and onward, with the Landsat era, but some places have kept immaculate records of wildfire occurrences, and even extents. I think that would help a lot to discuss NRV and such.
I have only found this link, which certainly seems to imply that fire is quite natural in the area, but does not have anything about timing, severity, and is also only 1980 and onward.
https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb
Of course, this is only in the news because people on the east coast have their feelings hurt. Just like how seldomly we ever hear about USDA forest management issues in the midwest/east coast.
Anon: Quick response because you personally insulted me, apparently based on your mind reading abilities. First, no idea about your “previous responses to Deane,” but good for him for calling you out, probably for similar reasons. Not sure where the trust fund and “not have to worry” comments come from — apparently as rationale/opportunity for having a phony name?
But mostly, it must be nice to hide behind a fake identity and hurl insults at people you don’t know anything about. I’m not sure where you think I’m “gloating” about my academic background, but then you ask questions about Canadian fire history and expect cooperation.
I have no idea who you are or what your academic qualifications are, of course, and only have your acts of cowardice and snark to go on, but FYI, here’s a copy of my dissertation and you can judge for yourself whether or not it is “nothing more than a BA in history/sociology” (my committee thought it was okay): http://nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Thesis/Zybach_PhD_2003.pdf
People sometimes use pseudonyms for good reason — hiding behind a cover and publicly yelling insults to actual people isn’t one of them. That’s what cowards and immature children do. No excuse. Even Toby knows better than that, and I do admire that aspect of his character.
Note: My PhD is in the natural science field of historical ecology, with a focus on wildfire history and reforestation, but “even” (your arrogant “nothing more than” measure) historians and sociologists can earn PhDs. I’m calling BS on you. And maybe NV. Or an MS at most. And zero publications. Close?
Dear Anon,
I completely understand that you could face retaliation for comments that you make here. That is a reason for remaining anonymous, but a poor one. Presumably those you worry about already know that you enjoy telling people off. They will recognize you, even if we do not. Remember that the infamous “Unibomber” was recognized by his peculiar speech patterns. Artificial Intelligence will make such recognition much easier.
Perhaps a better strategy is to remain civil and constructive. That would show that you are a responsible individual who wants to make this a better world. Attaching your name to something says that you stand behind it. Hiding behind a pseudonym means that no one will take you seriously, especially on questions of science. Discussions of “Climate Change” are full of bad faith, ignorance, and fraud.
The only thing that seems to matter to many is winning an argument at the expense of truth. That is not a good strategy for anyone.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
“Obsessed” is a little strong, but I’ll take that as a compliment. I try to stay in my lane, but my lane (which did include some field work and computer modeling long ago) really adds up to natural resource policy analysis, which can be a wide lane.
This post has generated the most trading of insults of any I have read in my short two years of following this forum. I don’t believe this recent study will change anyone’s mind, but it seems to add one more pillar of support for those in the anthropogenic warming camp.
“Our results explain why extending “vertical fingerprinting” to the mid to upper stratosphere yields incontrovertible evidence of human effects on the thermal structure of Earth’s atmosphere.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300758120
Does that study explain why it was warmer than now in five previous warmings (2 Egyptians, Minoan, Roman and Medieval) and why whatever caused those IS NOT the cause of our current warming?
If not, why should anyons conclude it is evidence on man’s CO2 harming the climate.
thanks
JK
Jim, I would recommend reading the study and I would respect – but maybe not agree with – your conclusions as long as they were about the veracity of the study rather than slinging mud as has been happening so much in this thread. In the greater scheme of things our agreement or disagreement means nothing of course. I read your question as a way of saying that past global warming trends were not caused by humans, so the current global warming trend is not due to humans. To me, that is like saying, wildfires have occurred on earth long before humans arrived, thus wildfires cannot be caused by humans.
Mike — “I would recommend reading the study and I would respect”
ONLY after you show the alleged evidence, in that study, that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. Otherwise it is just a distraction from the big picture.
BTW Santer is one of the climate clowns from the CRU that refuses to divulge his data and methods (which gives him ZERO credibility):
I quote his email: “19/03/2009: If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available -raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals. (1237496573.txt)”
He also threatened to beat the crap out of a well respected opposing scientist:
“09 Oct 2009: I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. (1255100876.txt)”
More about the top climate “scientists” at: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/SelectedEmails.html
Mike — “I read your question as a way of saying that past global warming trends were not caused by humans, so the current global warming trend is not due to humans.”
Close but you missed the subtlety: If you are going to claim a different cause for today, you have to explain why the previous cause just quit. ESPECIALLY since today’s warming is less than previous ones. If the previous cause was still active, that would leave NO ROOM for man’s CO2 to add to the previous cause. ALSO NOTE that ALL of those warmings were about 1000 years apart, forming a clear cyclic pattern that INCLUDES today’s warming.
Mike — “To me, that is like saying, wildfires have occurred on earth long before humans arrived, thus wildfires cannot be caused by humans.”
NOPE – it is more like saying that there are LESS FIRES NOW, so why are we postulating a new cause? There is no reason to assume the natural cause went away and arson took over. Of course, with fire it is a mixture of causes. And the fact is that the natural causes of fires still exists, but the claim is that the natural cause of warm periods STOPPED because man’s CO2 is solely the cause of recent warming.
Thanks
JK
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
Jonathan Haber, i noticed you linked to a site that specializes in lies to spread climate panic.
Please see DebunkingSkepticalScience.com and don’t miss their lie about 97% of scientists and their like of nazi uniforms.
Where in that lengthy explanation is actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming?
Please note:
1-Evidence of warming, unusual weather, storms, floods IS NOT evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause.
2-Correlation is not causation
3-An expert’s assertion, or government’s assertion is not evidence. It is hearsay.
4-Consensus of experts, Polls or Majority belief is not evidence
5-Climate models are not evidence.
6–Warmest weather in 100 years means it was warmer 100 years ago when CO2 was lower.
7-If an event is NOT unprecedented, then you have to explain why whatever caused the earlier events is NOT the cause of the latest occurrence of that event.
Evidence is actual data PRO AND CON with reasoned analysis and logical conclusions while FULLY CONSIDERING OPPOSING evidence.
You will find quite a bit of opposing evidence on the main page of debunkingClimate.com, most with links to highly credible sources.
Thanks
JK
A, hopefully final, observation about this thread on climate:
I noticed that the true believer(s), have made multiple claims that there is a climate problem so severe that it will cause the earth’s population to decrease and so severe that we all must accept a lower standard of living.
But they have ignored repeated requests for actual evidence that there is actually a climate problem.
On the other side, those claiming that there is no climate problem have posted actual evidence to support their beliefs. Interestingly there was ZERO opposing evidence from those claiming we have a climate problem.
Who do you believe?
1) those screaming that we have a problem, but are unable/unwilling to support their claim(s) with actual evidence, or
2) those who present actual evidence that there is no problem?
Thanks
JK
Criminy sakes, please read more carefully: I believe (based on a search of this overlong thread) that I’m the only commenter who used the word “population” (once!). And I did not say the “climate problem [is] so severe that it will cause the earth’s population to decrease.” Not even close.
I explicitly referenced “other resource problems,” especially resource limits and inequity. Some competent analysts argue that climate change is just a side show to these main events.
I’ve not really gotten down in the dirt with anthropogenic climate change deniers before, but it felt familiar. There has been a lot of discussion about populist anti-elitism during the Trump years, and I wondered if that could include scientists on the outside of a current scientific issue. The abstract of this article posits that, “According to this view, populists would view climate scientists as part of the self-serving elite that betrays the people.” I hear that tone in a number of the comments posted here.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2021.1978200
Johnthan wrote–“According to this view, populists would view climate scientists as part of the self-serving elite that betrays the people.” I hear that tone in a number of the comments posted here.”
Take a look at some of the top “scientists” own statements: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/SelectedEmails.html
Here is my take on how this whole thing works (you will find many others if you google for them):
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/not_a_conspiracy.html
Here are some things you should consider:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/attacks_on_scientists.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/failedpredictions.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/historic_news.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/news_reports.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/oktolie.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/lie_to_you_1.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/russia-articles.html
And, perhaps the most important:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/lack_of_data.html
Thanks
JK
Just like it doesn’t matter what Trump thinks is true about his sexual assault because the jury said he was guilty, it doesn’t matter what some scientists say about human contributions to global warming in Montana today. In the ongoing court case against the State of Montana for its actions contributing to climate change, the parties agreed. Said the attorney for the State:
“We stipulated for purposes of the trial that there’s a scientific consensus that earth is warming as a direct result of human GHG emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.”
https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/montana-climate-trial-hears-final-arguments/article_f161e19e-b013-596a-8ff1-4965d37afdf1.html
Similar cases have been filed in many (all?) other states. It may soon become a universally accepted legal fact.
Jonathan: Attorneys are not scientists. Who are the so called “scientists” used in this trial? I see no names. I know a physicist who is watching this trial and informs us there is virtually no defense the State of Montana is even putting on to defend against this rubbish! What’s up with that??
You can claim anything you want in a lawsuit. The evidence put forth determines any validity. Extreme weather, be it temperature, tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, heat waves, snowstorms, windstorms and hurricane frequency by themselves are NOT an offer of any proof whatsoever that human emissions of CO2 are causing them. In fact, an application of atmospheric science demonstrates that all these events (with the exception of tropical hurricanes) would actually DECREASE in intensity and frequency, NOT INCREASE as claimed in this frivolous lawsuit if the claims were true. We know from atmospheric science what the symptoms of a changing climate if atmospheric CO2 was driving it would be and it is NOT what is claimed in this frivolous lawsuit. I wrote about this to demonstrate this point with atmospheric dynamics here and to date, NONE of these changes are emerging in the atmospheres global circulation system:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/a-warming-arctic-would-not-cause-increased-severe-weather-or-temperature-extremes-2/?fbclid=IwAR1i5_-BJ62gqZM0gEfVuikgWb0J8iDR93JbJhsCfw-nOmb900IvuTarlqI
This whole “climate change” rubbish is now derived and pushed from completely politicized and rotted out science that has nothing of value attached to it but whose Rx is to implement stupid and dangerous public policies that will destroy our standard of living and ostracize American businesses and consumers by removing economic choices that we will get absolutely nothing in return for. It has become a strictly political junket that only enriches those who aspire for much greater government power and those “green businesses” that are part of the crony capitalist culture.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
“stupid and dangerous public policies that will destroy our standard of living and ostracize American businesses and consumers by removing economic choices that we will get absolutely nothing in return for”
That’s an example of “populists would view climate scientists as part of the self-serving elite that betrays the people.” (And that seems a bit outside the expertise zone of even a meteorologist.)
Jonathan: No. It’s called a realist view that is grounded in established and provable scientific principles, not the incompetent gobbledygook that climate hysterics tout frequently that they can’t back up with any science.
That being the truth, the only defense that these types (Toby Thaler’s of the world, are you in this group?) can offer is to label their opponents with a degrading name to try and deflect from their total lack of objectivity lacking the use of logic, evidence and knowledge. In my book, that’s called incompetence.
We have tried to engage these so called “climate scientists” who tout the sort of nonsense you apparently subscribe to. To the few that debated us, it didn’t turn out very well for them. And the majority refuse. They know why and we know why. It’s because their hypothesis is based upon a shaky premise that is a half-truth that cannot be followed through to developing a provable theory with observations that are necessary to validate it. Running a “climate model” is not a proof their premise is correct, and it actually diverges from founding principles.
That being said, the public policies being fronted to “cure” a “crisis” that doesn’t exist are, in fact, dangerous and stupid. You can prove this with just basic calculations of what will happen to the electric grid with their planned implementation of renewables and nothing to back them up with except hydroelectric and at the same time, trying to require that all motor vehicles become electric by 2035. Here is some reading for you because I ran the numbers. They don’t add up:
https://redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2021/07/01/green-energy-uber-alles-say-oregons-lunatic-democrats-n403701
So in conclusion, you are wrong. My comments are not “outside the expertise zone of a meteorologist”.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Jonathan Haber -“We stipulated for purposes of the trial that there’s a scientific consensus that earth is warming as a direct result of human GHG emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Did anyone show any actual evidence, or just consider the result of a massive propaganda campaign, government lies, and science misconduct to produce the truth?
My point is that it doesn’t matter. For the purpose of this case, the argument is over and warming is a direct result of GHG emissions. I expect this conclusion to be repeated in other cases and places, either by admission or by review of the evidence.
Jon, at the risk of getting involved with this.. warming can be “a result” of GHGs (and land use changes) but scientists disagree about how much a particular number can be traced to GHGs vs. other factors. I guess to put it in regulat language, whether it is a result of GHG’s or resulting from GHGs only. I think those are two different concepts.
The 99% says “the principal role of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities.” And I don’t think it’s that important to determine the “particular number” for that principal role if we know that it is enough to warrant mitigation measures.
Jonathan wrote–“The 99% says “the principal role of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities.”
Please quit repeatin obvious lies?
Did you bother to read my previous reply TO YOU on this subject?
Did you understand that ALL of those claims are pure garbage, cook is particularly obvious because he admits it in this abstract. Try real hard to understand this:
from cook’s famous survey: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
He admitted finding ” that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW” That means, at most 33.6% of ABSTRACTS (not scientists) believe than man is causing serious global warming (which is different than “endorsed AGW”
BEFORE YOU continue to repeat climate alarm industry lies, please post actual evidence to support your claim that 99% of scientists fell for Al Gore’s climate scam.
thanks
JK
Unfortunately true. Remember when apartheid was “a universally accepted legal fact?” Or Dred Scott? Those lawyers! Those “scientists!” Gotta love ’em!
The Dred Scott decision was an interpretation of the U. S. Constitution, not a factual question like the cause of global warming. (I can’t speak to South Africa.) But it is true that our understanding of facts changes, and courts find the current facts and apply the laws to them. Here, GHG as the cause was conceded as a fact (and it really doesn’t matter what that was based on).
If I can propose, where, in my opinion, this discussion got off track, it’s that there are three groups of people
1. Anthropogenic climate change is not occurring.
2. Yes it’s occurring, but there are many uncertainties as to specifics of what will happen in the future.
3. ???
I think some of you are arguing that AGW is real. Cliff has said he believes it’s real so therefore he can’t be in group 1.
So it seems like you all, me and Cliff all agree that it’s real.
Observation 1. Different scientists with different perspectives disagree on AGW’s contribution to specific observations of specific things at specific times (retroactive). Scientists also disagree on what to do about it, as do the practical people involved in energy transitions, farmers and so on.
Finally scientists disagree on various aspects of predicting the future given the impacts of AGW and efforts to mitigate carbon.
So we are exploring in our own humble TSW way, these perspectives and the nature of these disagreements insofar as it affects our own items of interest.
Do people disagree with my observation? Perhaps we can go deeper in this dialogue among people who are 2s and 3s.
Dear Sharon,
I am afraid that you are far off the mark. I have never heard a skeptic say that “Anthropogenic climate change is not occurring.” Certainly no one here says that. Most scientists who are worth their degrees know full well that humans are having measurable effects on our climate, at least in limited areas.
We talk at length about the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect that makes cities warmer than their surrounding rural areas. This has led to considerable bias in the measured average temperature in some areas. If you look at the reported temperatures at Tucson airport, you will see an upward trend, as the city has urbanized around the airport. The former Washington State climatologist, Mark Albright, and UW Professor Cliff Mass have pointed to a jump in the average temperature at SeaTac airport, after the construction of a third runway. And there are many other examples of this. There are also rural weather stations that are well-sited and show little to no long term warming.
The UHI effect is far from the “Global Warming,” claimed by the zealots here, yet they use it all the time. If they have any idea what they are promoting, it is that increasing atmospheric CO2 drives more water into the atmosphere as water vapor and causes far more warming than the minute amount from CO2 alone. This is Manabe’s thesis that won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021. The problem with his modeling is that it does not go far enough, as pointed out by the 2022 Nobel Laureate, John Clauser.
Water vapor kicks in strong negative feedbacks that compensate for the warming. Clauser touts clouds, because increasing cumulus clouds increase the albedo of this planet. I would add that more water vapor also enhances the hydrological cycle, dumping huge quantities of latent heat at the top of the atmosphere for radiation to space. Then MIT Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Richard Lindzen points out that warming decreases cirrus (ice) clouds that produce a pseudo greenhouse effect.
In other words, there are a host of reasons why our climate is broadly stable, even against Milankovitch cycles that plunge this planet into 100,000 year Ice Ages. At the depths of Ice Ages, northern and southern areas are much colder. But the tropics remain relatively untouched by the periodic orbital changes.
Using extremist, almost religious, rhetoric (eg., “climate change is real”) is unscientific and counterproductive. Our climate is always changing for perfectly natural reasons. But there is no impending catastrophe, except for a drop into the next Ice Age. That is already overdue, because we are presently in a Milankovitch ‘Great Winter.’
Competent scientists want to understand which climate effects dominate. Clauser points out that clouds dominate CO2 warming by a factor of about 100. The tail is not wagging the dog, even if those without scientific backgrounds, namely those supporting catastrophe here, think so. Note that Toby thinks that he should have as much of a vote in scientific matters as those of us who have strong scientific credentials, in contrast to his none.
I suggest that you encourage everyone here to talk science not non-science or simply nonsense. And you should insist that the name-calling stop. That is all that the crowd promoting catastrophe has to offer.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
Gordon wrote–“know full well that humans are having measurable effects on our climate, at least in limited areas.”
Of course, the key is “in limited areas”. Let me clarify my belief:
On a global scale, as far as I can tell, there is NOTHING UNUSUAL about today’s global temperature – it was warmer and it was cooler in various earlier Holocene periods. That means that there is NO PLACE for man’s CO2 to be causing global warming (and thus, the claimed climate change), unless you can show that whatever caused earlier warm periods, quit (or reduced) causing warm periods so that man’s CO2 can fill the void.
As an aside, it is important to remember that all “climate crisis”, “climate disruption” claims are based on the belief that MAN’S CO2 is causing GlOBAL WARMING by TRAPPING IR. Anything else is a diversion from this fundamental claim.
The warmista’s case is based on observing that CO2 traps heat in a lab jar of 100% CO2. as most scientists and engineers know, there is huge difference between the lab and the real world. In this case the blocking effect of water vapor is ignored as are atmospheric effects such as water vapor, convection, advection, wind, thunderstorms, circulation, ocean currents, fundamental gas laws, evaporation, sublimation, absorption, condensation, jet streams, Rossby waves or H2O absorbing most of the IR.
thanks
JK
I don’t think you’re that far of the mark. Based on Gordon’s comments …
1. Anthropogenic climate change is not occurring.
2. Anthropogenic climate change is not the result of CO2.
3. Anthropogenic climate change is the result of CO2 (and other things).
Apparently it is only non-scientists in the 1st group, and the consensus of scientists is the 3rd group. “Consensus” maybe doesn’t mean 97%, but it might mean: “Our analysis demonstrates >99% agreement in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the principal role of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities in driving modern climate change (i.e. since the Industrial Revolution).” https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
Dear Jonathan,
You are talking in circles, indicating no scientific capabilities.
Note that all the scientists in this discussion support skepticism that CO2 is the all-purpose explanation for everything related to climate and weather. Non-scientists seem unable to even carry on a scientific discussion here, because they do not understand their own alarmist science, let alone the skeptical side of the arguments. Referencing scientific articles or propaganda websites that you have no hope of evaluating does not constitute discussion.
If you want to play amateur scientist, you need to learn something about this subject.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
And, for a scientist, you don’t read very closely. “Principal role of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities” is not the same as “all-purpose explanation for everything related to climate and weather.”
I can’t independently evaluate climate science. That’s why I listen to the 99%.
Dear Jonathan,
I think that we have found a point of agreement. I agree that you have no way of “evaluating climate science.” That is not only because you lack scientific training, but because you adamantly refuse to think for yourself. You take the lazy way out, by supporting the scam and the extraordinarily incorrect notion that science is a consensus activity.
If science were a consensus activity, we would still be back in the Dark Ages with the Inquisition dictating to Galileo how many wanderers there are in the night sky. And you would be refusing to look through Galileo’s telescope to see some of the moons of Jupiter.
As to consensus in climate science that carbon dioxide is evil and causing dangerous warming, you have that all wrong too. 99% of scientists who earn their living from the scam support it. The remainder of us do not.
And there are many very prominent scientists who oppose the climate superstitions. One prime example is Dr. John Clauser, the most recent Nobel Laureate in Physics. He said: “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
https://co2coalition.org/publications/nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors/
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
That’s a lot of scientists who earn their living from a “scam.” I suppose the others earn their living from “right-of-center” advocates” (https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/the-co2-coalition/). There must be very few objective scientists.
Be that as it may, I don’t think this is the place to debate whether climate scientists are right or wrong. Your arguments should be directed at the scientists that you don’t agree with (isn’t that the way Galileo did it?). When you convince them to change their minds, it will start showing up in places that will convince the rest of us. Scientific consensus does have place in public opinion and government decision-making based on the “best available science.” So while I’ve found this little interchange interesting up to a point, I think that point has probably passed for the other 1000 viewers, so I’ll leave you all to your own devices.
Dear Jonathan,
You are still having trouble evaluating VERY basic information. The CO2 Coalition has about 125 members who are high level scientists and economists. They are all volunteers who receive no compensation. Similarly, our Board of Directors is 100% volunteer. Directors receive no compensation. If you understand anything about conflicts-of-interest, you will understand that this means we have none.
As to Galileo, you need to brush up on your history. Galileo presented his observations of the moons of Jupiter to those who would listen and was promptly told to cease and desist by the Inquisition. The political and religious authorities of his day completely rejected his science. That is much like the strangling of science today, where the political and religious authorities are insisting on a particular outcome. And even when the heavily conflicted ‘climate authorities’ try to add a little sanity to the discussion, they are ignored.
It struck me that you are COMPLETELY unaware that the UN IPCC and other alarmists have officially removed the catastrophic scenarios that they once pushed. That has brought them much closer to what we have been saying all along. There is NO impending apocalypse. NONE!
You can read more about this in a new post from Sharon. But it was also covered by the New York Times.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
People who are dying due to increased heat would beg to differ, but they can’t since they’re dead.
The Texas governor’s response to such deaths is appropriate for people who deny reality:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/06/29/texas-heat-worker-water-breaks-local-regulations/70367028007/
Dear Toby,
I see that you are still at this subject, and still cannot get anything right. Yes, a few people die from the heat. But far more die from the cold.
Hence if this is your only argument, we are better off warmer than colder.
Reality is a tough taskmaster!
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Toby, please show us actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. If you cannot do that, we must assume that you are just acting out an irrational religion that man is evil
.
Jonathan wrote–“That’s why I listen to the 99%.”
that ONE line explains why you are wrong about climate.
1. There IS NO 99% consensus.
2. consensus has no place in science – it is based ONLY on evidence and logical analysis which includes analysis of contrary evidence.
3. the FACT that you believe that there is 99% shows you have not even bothered to look at those claims, NONE OF WHICH require a knowledge of “science”.
a. Have you ever actually seen a 99% consensus on anything? One would expect at least 1% to not understand the question, mis interpret the question or decide to give a wrong answer.
b. These ARE NOT surveys of scientists, they are analysis of abstracts of papers. Even a grade schooler should be able to understand that one cannot claim 97% of scientists by judging what is in an abstract. Especially since most of these papers are looking at THINGS OTHER THAN CAUSES.
c. The most popular survey is by Cook and he got 97% by tossing out about 65% of his data. Even a grade schooler should be able to understand that one cannot claim 97% AFTER ignoring 65% of the data.
d. If you put out a small amount of effort, you could have found high quality criticisms of all of those surveys:
It turns out that Cook grossly misrepresented the data (like his SkepticalScience web site routinely does) to fabricate a 97% consensus:
However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. from a peer reviewed paper here: http://link.springer.comJanuary 28, 2015/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/20/some-thoughts-on-the-recent-lewandowsky-cook-conspiracy-theory/#more-82449
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/mcintyres-dissection-of-the-cook-lewandowsky-lyingdeceivingincompetence-complex/#more-83025
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/25/dana-nuccitelli-misleads-and-misinforms-in-his-first-blog-post-at-the-guardian/#more-84832
(Including the lower level of explicit endorsements, Cook’s real number is 8% (999/12280). If you want to stretch the truth to include implications, then you still only get 32% (3933/12280).
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/97pct_is_meaningless.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/97percen_%20of_scientists…
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/…/watch…/
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/AMSSurvey.html
I meant to ask why you leave out Group 0 – “Climate change is not occurring.” They say things like, “Yes, it was just as windy, hot, and dry 50 years ago, and 500 years ago, too. Also 5,000, etc.”
Hi Jonathon: I’m through. This has gotten stupid, however clever you think these insults might be. Since you invented a “Group 0” for me by purposefully misconstruing my point on weather vs. climate, I’m putting you as a solid reserve on Team Toby and calling it good. Bye!
That was group 1.
Group 1 believes in global warming. Group 0 would include the author of this graffiti in the lead photo here: https://medium.com/bigpicturenews/why-dont-conservatives-believe-in-climate-change-157299cd6f1e
Jonathan wrote–“I meant to ask why you leave out Group 0 –Climate change is not occurring.” They say things like, “Yes, it was just as windy, hot, and dry 50 years ago, and 500 years ago, too. Also 5,000, etc.”
AGAIN–The climate is ALWAYS changing — few if any, deny that. But the fact is that NO ONE has shown that today’s weather/climate is unusual when compared over the whole Holocene.
BTW, that is what everyone here, including you, has shown by not being able to provide any actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
thanks
jk