Join The Community

Man-made We're screwed

"What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.

@Jane W. "grain farmers" have made a fortune on the back of the RFS. The government subsidizes crop revenue insurance for 80% of their production with crop prices at elevated levels. Grain prices have doubled over the last 6 years- and this has a real impact on the most vulnerable people in the world. Farmland prices have entered a bubble-phase in the past few years. The average price of Iowa/Illinois row crop farmland is now over $8000/acre. Even a family farmer who has a small amount of land, 320ac which is way below the median acreage owned by grain farmers in that region, has an asset worth over $2million.
Are dairy farmers getting rich? No. Are tobacco/peanut farmers getting rich? No Are grain farmers getting rich? Yes. They take a lot of risks in a very capital intensive and now high-tech industry and good for them.
But, I find it difficult to believe that many environmentally conscious Americans really believe that our ETOH program is a good thing

Push a "climate scientist" to specify how much effect emissions control could have. It's fractions of a degree, in a century. At best, and at horrific cost. Trillions of dollars per degree. Assuming the AGW speculation is correct, which it is not.

The fatal flaw in the climate models seems to come from one repeated assumption. The assumption is that positive feedbacks from greenhouse effects can exceed negative feedbacks. While this situation might actually exist over a given time period (and reflect temperature increases during that time period as a result) the average over the long term must net to zero. If it doesn’t, then everything we have learned about physics over the last 1000 years is wrong, and perpetual motion is possible. If a climatologist and a physicist were to discuss the matter, the conversation might be as follows:

Climatologist; I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist; The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist; Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist; see above.

Climatologist; Perhaps you don’t understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.

Climatologist; But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.

Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.

Climatologist; That can’t be true. I’ve been measuring temperature at thousands of points in the system and the average is rising.

Physicist; The temperature rise you observe can be due to one of two factors. It may be due to a cyclic variation that has not completed, or it could be due to the changes you alluded to earlier resulting in a redistribution of energy in the system that affects the measurement points more than the system as a whole. Unless the energy inputs have changed, the long term temperature average would be… see above.

Climatologist; AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.

Physicist; Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?

Climatologist; Uhm… no.

Physicist; rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet… see above.

Climatologist; Methane! Methane absorbs even more than CO2.

Physicist; see above.

Climatologist; Clouds! Clouds would retain more energy!

Physicist; see above.

Climatologist; Ice! If a fluctuation in temperature melted all the ice less energy would be reflected into space and would instead be absorbed into the system, raising the temperature. Ha!

Physicist; The ice you are pointing at is mostly at the poles where the inclination of the radiant energy source is so sharp that there isn’t much energy to absorb anyway. But what little there is would certainly go into the surface the ice used to cover, raising its temperature. That would reduce the temperature differential between equator and poles which would slow down convection processes that move energy from hot places to cold places. The result would be increased radiance from the planet that would exceed energy input until the planet cooled down enough to start forming ice again. As I said before, the change to the system that you propose could well result in redistribution of energy flows, and in short term temperature fluctuations, but as for the long term average temperature…. see above.

Climatologist; Blasphemer! Unbeliever! The temperature HAS to rise! I have reports! I have measurements! I have computer simulations! I have committees! United Nations committees! Grant money! Billions and billions and billions! I CAN’T be wrong, I will never explain it! Billions! and the carbon trading! Trillions in carbon trading!

Physicist; how much grant money?

Climatologist; Billions. Want some?

Physicist; Uhm…

Climatologist; BILLIONS

Climatologist; Hi. I used to be a physicist. When I started to understand the danger the world was in though, I decided to do the right thing and become a climatologist. Let me explain the greenhouse effect to you…

The Corn-based ethanol program was a boondoggle to begin with. It's primary purpose was to support farmers not lower emissions. Other farm subsidies are a completely separate issue and have nothing to do with what we're discussing. The vast majority of people I know that prefer government assistance in fighting AGW are not in favor of this kind of waste.

What I've not heard any specific opposition to is increased support for more efficient vehicles, solar, wind, nuclear and energy storage solutions thru a combination of standards(CAFE), Tax incentives and feed-in tariffs.

Many programs have been wildly successful; my favorite is CAFE since it makes it economically beneficial for an auto manufacturer to self-subsidize a more efficient vehicle while raising the cost to the consumer of a less efficient vehicle.

Absent the mandatory feed-in tarrifs in Germany it's very likely that the solar industry would only be a small fraction of what it is today. Germanys lust for solar allowed manufactures to reach the economies of scale necessary to bring cost down to the point that solar is now at grid parity in far more places that it's not.

The Free-Market is a powerful tool but it's still just a tool. The external cost of carbon must be put on the shoulders of the consumer for the free-market to work against AGW without government intervention. The issues with AGW are a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario. The Free-Market solution is to privatize the commons so the owners are motivated to preserve it in their own self-interest. Ok... how the hell do you privatize the atmosphere?


It's great that acid rain pollution was reversed and had unintended benefits such as health savings. Success needs to be recognized.

But when each half of the country works to opposing goals you also risk silly solutions. For example, some warming advocates have advocated pumping sulphur into the air to get the cooling parasail affect that helps cool the planet if warming becomes too serious. And the green crowd was probably for corn ethanol before they were against it. And corn ethanol is not all bad, if I was a poor corn farmer in Africa, I rather get twice the price of corn, rather than half. Plus corn purchased from local producers keeps more money in the local poorer economies.

So for corn alcohol, I wouldn't expand it, but I wouldn't eliminate it either and keep looking for improvements or better solutions, eg switchgrass. Other breakthroughs are possible. So why punish risk takers who produced the corn alcohol ? And our American farm community is one of the economic sectors supporting the weak struggling economy, so the whole corn alcohol initiative was worth trying. Just like reducing sulphur was worth doing, only it worked out much faster, and turned out to be both ecolo-green as well as a little econo-green.

Other solutions should appease both camps but with compromise. For example let's take France, they get most of their electricity from nuclear power. Germany wants to be all green and no nukes. They should make an agreement for France to double their nuclear power plants to sell electricity to Germany. This will allow both countries' electricity to be cost efficient and carbon free. Funding should be from a financial transaction tax in France to provide the building funds. (financial institutions were one group that help cause global recession).

This large infrastructure project will help revive the French economy and their French stock market who will see the benefit of being taxed for the project.

Let's look at this type of solution characteristics and positives. This is an example of creative solutioning, it is carbon green and econo-green. Made possible by compromise. It's not a single sided, right or left, solution and solves multiple problems. It's wealth generating, it doesn't eliminate jobs, takes advantage of low interest rates and excess labor in France/Spain. It helps these countries get off oil and make electric vehicles more green. It's also synergistic, will help these countries economies recover, which will also help European and world economies recover. And most of all, it doesn't ecourage "False Dilemmas" .

And this solution example is based on sound logic, not convoluted partisan logic I hear for example "We have to cut expenses now to balance the budget. If that were true, no company would ever go bankrupt, they'd just cut expenses. If your small business Income is 10k/mo, and your fixed expenses 20k/mo, and optional expenses 5k/mo, your not going to cut your way to a profit. You have to increase income and give that more immediate priority.

Equally flawed partisan logic; but, also sounds deceptively true, is a statemade made by the left, (slight paraphrase)"For every dollar we give away in unemployment , etc, we get back $1.70 in economic activity." If that were true, all we have to do for economic prosperity is put everyone in the country on unemployment. The deceptive part is "economic activity" which is not tax revenue. So yeah I bought a Starbucks coffee for $1.70 with my unemployment check, but Starbucks only paid 50 cents in tax revenue on that purchase. Both of these examples are designed to win arguments for a course of action, not solve problems.

The type of management we have now in this country solving our problems is like a corporation, who has half of their board of directors shorting their stock, and the other half of the board has stock options. Not exactly a good system to overcome problems.

"The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change."

If this is true then how did Venus, the second plant from the sun get a higher average surface temperature than Mercury, the closest planet to the sun?

Also, roundly and repeadedly debunked by every paleo-climate study ever published.

Spotted this Gem in the pile of garbage Brian left..

"The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere"

Do deniers really think this is true? Brian, do you really think this is true?

Believers should note that the Economist, which has been by editorial dictat purely AGW-pushing since forever, has just bailed.

Well done Brian... you finally provided a link to a relatively respectable source. I can't speak for everyone but I'm proud of the progress you've made :) I hope you learned something from that article, it agreed unequivocally with the three statements I made previously. Does this mean you've finally moved on from the idiotic is AGW real isn't AGW real debate? Somehow I doubt that but as always I remain cautiously realistic.

How much of a threat is AGW? Now there is a question around which there is legitimate scientific debate! Some studies say <1C this study says 8C by 2100.

As with most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

This threat of AGW isn't just with higher temperatures but the weather pattern changes these shifts bring. It's been observed that the Jet Stream is more erratic with higher polar temperatures to the point that it can actually curve back on itself. One such curve pushed Hurricane Sandy into New Jersey. Could Sandy have still made landfall without AGW? Sure; but we know from observation that AGW INCREASED the probability of a Hurricane making such an unusual hard left turn.

That's just one of many examples of how AGW is a threat that needs to be confronted.

Your condescending post is out to lunch. I was aware of all this material long ago, just bringing it to the heavily blinkered attention of you Believers. The Economist still has a way to go, but at last it is acknowledging some home truths about the (C)AGW nonsense.

The Arctic Sea article is wrong on so many levels I'm not going to respond, other than to note that sea ice coverage there touched all-time (recent history) highs several times this winter. Not that it makes a smidgeon of difference. For numerous technical reasons.

"I was aware of all this material long ago..."

So you're continued denial of reality is based on what?

"The Arctic Sea article is wrong on so many levels I'm not going to respond"

Interesting tactic in a scientific debate...

Headline of that Economist article:
May be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away

Conclusion of that article:
As a rule of thumb, global temperatures rise by about 1.5°C for each trillion tonnes of carbon put into the atmosphere. The world has pumped out half a trillion tonnes of carbon since 1750, and temperatures have risen by 0.8°C. At current rates, the next half-trillion tonnes will be emitted by 2045; the one after that before 2080.

Since CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere, this could increase temperatures compared with pre-industrial levels by around 2°C even with a lower sensitivity and perhaps nearer to 4°C at the top end of the estimates. Despite all the work on sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4°C. Hardly reassuring.

Reality has disproven the fundamental hypothesis. Accelerating global emissions beyond the highest projections have had no effect on temperatures for almost 2 decades. FAIL.

NASA is selling the meme.

Those are the First, Second, Third and Fourth IPCC reports vs. reality. Their guesses/claims are not improving.

What a testament, that Tesla can sell a car to the few flat-earthers still wandering around....
The ol' dinosaurs really pine for those Jurrasic-era temps before they go extinct.
But without knowing it, fork over their money to hurt their cause. Gotta love it.
Elon was right, just make the best car and they won't know what hit 'em




Where did you find that graph? (Line of best fit still shows upward trend for observations) The NASA data has nothing to do with guesses/claim it's Data collected from satellites. NOAA data is collected from monitoring stations.

@BrianH ,

Beautiful chart, my compliments if you did that yourself. Only problem is its basically it's a 20 yr chart. As statistical types know, just like the stock market, long term trends outweigh shorter term trends. I did well in college statistics, a lot of statics requires interpretation, so lets try some statistical methodology analysis using a 100 years of statistics from the DJIA and see how different 20yr and 100 predictions hold up.

From 1900 to 2000 the DJIA is a 200 bagger, (see link below to DJIA chart) The market went from roughly 50 points (year 1900)to 11,500 (year 2000).

Basically this is a methodology critique of both sides. If you just looked at the DJIA chart from 1962 to 1982 its flatish and the 2000 yr prediction is around 1000 points for the DJIA., (instead of 11,500 DJIA '2000), off by a factor of ten.

If you take DJIA yr 1930 to 1950, its descending, and you get a year 2000 DJIA projection under 100 pts vs year DJIA yr 2000 of 11,500 points.This is off by a factor of over a 100.

So much for 20 yr charts.

If you like hockey sticks, project out the 20 th century DJIA growth rate of 200 times from 1900 to 2000; that means by 2100, the DJIA will be over two million using the 100 year growth rate ! Extrapolate, that's 1,000,000 DJIA by 2050, and a 500,000 DJIA by 2025 ! Sounds incredible, but how will we know if this is true ? Probably have to wait till at least 2050 or beyond.

But if I was predicting the DJIA for 2025, I'd say 50,000 is entirely possible, it's only a triple. But that's only if we don't screw up the economy even more with bad one sided, unsynergistic solutions and public policy.

So much for 100 yr charts and predicting out from that. You'll need good luck predicting anything with just a 100 years of statistical data as well. For me, if Phoenix, Az hits 150 degree highs (30 degrees higher than current all time highs), I'll say the Warmers are onto something. Until then I suggest multi-tasked solutions to solve multiple problems and objectives that are both econo & ecolo green.

Here's the DJIA link covering the whole 20th century:

Feel free to submit for other scientific paper inclusions and review.

At the time the original AR reports were created, the IPCC agreed 10 yrs outside the error bars would invalidate them. They then revised that to 15, then 17. The jig is up. You don't get to retroactively change that.

Nonsense. Pixie dust dreams. Continued use of fossil fuels causes considerable hardship, and has no demonstrable benefit.

Ahhh... JK. Why would I resort to random banter that adds nothing of substance when I have facts on my side?

Here you go...

If you're the "published" and "peer-reviewed" type...

Brian:"NASA is selling the meme." NASA? Why? NAS, too. Why? NOAA, too. Why? Conspiracy?

Do you really think there is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists to ruin us and rob us blind?

37% of Americans think that global warming is a hoax
28% of people believe in a sinister global New World Order conspiracy, aimed at ruling the whole world through authoritarian government.
21% say a UFO crashed in Roswell, NM
28% believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks
51% say a larger conspiracy was at work in the JFK assassination

Please note, all. Brian pushes out a statement. You refute it. He does not come back and argue that point, he jumps to some other point. Just keeps running.

Yep... Duane Gish may be dead but his debate tactics will live on forever in people like Brian. Sadly the "Gish Gallop" is here to stay :(


Yes, but what does NASCAR say?

Not conspiracy, just politics. Keeping the Narrative going is becoming increasingly difficult, however. Nature keeps giving the raspberry to the model outputs and projections.

By Brian's thought process Tesla stock is pointless to long term invest in because it is not going up. The trends we have seen lately are just the bulls making it appear to be going up. The stock is actually going down. Look it's simple....

Friday the stock opened at $47.98. It continued to drop in the morning until around 10am. At a little after 3pm it was below 47.98.... see it's going down not up.
Nothing in that statement is wrong... I just left out all the high points of the day and the closing price. We don't know the closing temp of global warming yet but even Brian's pretty graph shows temps are higher now than they were in 2000 yet he concludes over the long term temperatures are dropping.
Depending on when you cherry pick your samples that is. Time for Brian to short some Tesla stock.

In the early months of 2012 if I recall correctly there was a point the shares were above $39. In July of 2012 shares were only a little above $35 at a few points. In March of 2013 it was below $35 a few times. Clearly the stock is going down. If you put that data against a graph of what the bulls wanted to see it is clear the stock price is dropping. There is no effect on the stock from people buying shares in the long run it will go down sooner or later.

Nature isn't playing stock market gains to accrue supporters and Believers. No need for those human games.

If natural variation overwhelmed the influence of CO2 for the last 16 years, it was always the dominant factor -- yet the IPCC wrote it off. Bad move. The turkeys are coming home to roost.

typo: "... stock market games to ..."

"If natural variation overwhelmed the influence of CO2 for the last 16 years, it was always the dominant factor -- yet the IPCC wrote it off"

.... What? Where the hell do you get this crap? Again... Fox News is not a scientific journal.

"In the end, the greenhouse-gas-induced warming is largely overwhelming the other forcings, which are only of secondary importance on the 20-year timescale" -Journal Nature

The IPCC 4th assessment is predicting a 1.1C to 6.4C rise this century due to anthropocentric effects. Their first assessment predictions are trending towards the low end of their prediction in terms of temperature but still within the error bars. They dramatically UNDERESTIMATED other effects such as sea level rise and loss of arctic ice.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen