" (CNN)The new government report on climate change, which the Trump administration released quietly a day after Thanksgiving and two days after President Donald Trump tweeted skeptically about the existence of climate change, warns that the drastic human effects on the climate could cause thousands of Americans to die and cost the US economy hundreds of billions of dollars.
But even before the report was made public, Americans were extremely worried about climate change."
Americans should be concerned about climate change............the reporting of it using fake news and us funding garbage like this report from biased government scientists:
Some incredible cherry picking and biased stuff.
They predict that crop yields will fall 12.1% because of weather/climate change, crop disease and insects which is already adversely effecting food production according to them.
What about atmospheric fertilization from carbon dioxide from the law of photosynthesis?
From the report. “effects of CO2 on crops are highly uncertain”.
For soybeans, the 6 highest yielding years, have been the last 6 growing seasons. This is not in spite of climate change and the increase in CO2 but because of it:
Cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars they say? Exactly wrong!
How about double digit TRILLIONS in economic benefits from increased agricultural productivity:
These scientists can’t even get the law of photosynthesis right. It’s not just crops but all plants:
And it’s not just plants in thousands of studies but plants on the entire planet:
That even affects deserts:
That doesn’t look highly uncertain to me.
They claim that the number of tornadoes in tornado outbreaks has increased because of climate change. They show a graph that has an increase since the 1990’s of tornado days that had 30 or more tornadoes on that day.
What a strange coincidence that this sudden bump up, coincided with the installation of the nation wide NEXRAD doppler radars at NWS sites in the 1990’s(last one in Indiana in 1997) which could now detect actual tornadoes that were not detected before(and were getting reported in the new tornado count)
Strong/violent tornadoes peaked in the 1970's during global cooling. They have decreased, not in spite of but BECAUSE of global warming/climate change: these type of tornadoes cause 95% of fatalities and most of the injuries. Why did they not include the massive reduction in this climate change caused metric? Instead they reported the increase in weak tornadoes detected by the new NEXRAD radars and attributed that to climate change.
Maybe they should have looked here and shown this graph which tells the truth, instead.
Below, is the tornado count for 2018. We are tracking right along the record lowest since records have been kept...........and that's with the additional tornadoes detected by NEXRAD and people with cell phone camera's ........etc
They chose to not address the decrease in severe thunderstorm wind events caused by weaker cold fronts and weaker jet streams which result when you warm the higher latitudes.
They mention the possibility of the extreme cold from several Winters ago being caused by blocking from climate change. We heard about that from the government before:
“A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues,” Holdren asserts. Watch it”
They discuss atmospheric rivers and models forecasting a 50% to 600% increase in them for the West Coast……….but claim that there is no clear consensus on whether this increase in frequency and intensity will translate into increasing precipitation for California. ....despite many models showing that it will.
"...They discuss the 11 year major hurricane drought in the US, sort of in damage control mode. They are correct when they state that there has been no increase in number or strength of tropical cyclones from global warming/climate change .....so far, (even though models have predicted this). They site a study that suggests that climate change could result in less hurricanes striking the US to sound objective...............then completely ignore it, as they then claim that land falling major hurricanes is the wrong metric to use for measuring damage from hurricanes…………and they go ahead and use data from busted models for estimating economic losses from extreme weather from land falling major hurricanes being 10% stronger because it supports what they want to show.
They mention Super storm Sandy in 2012 as being a product of climate change........
Super Storm Sandy unprecedented in 2012?
Nope, Hurricane Hazel in 1954 did a similar thing and was even stronger......during global cooling and because of a cold weather -NAO pattern..similar to what caused this "Frankenstorm" the name that Sandy got because it happened on Halloween:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hazel
|Category 4 major hurricane (SSHWS/NWS)|
And 3 major hurricanes hit the East Coast in 3 months in 1954, Carol, Edna, then Hazel........that was unprecedented! During global cooling.
They show an increase in mortality rates because of climate change, especially from heat. (even though cold kills more people than heat). This includes premature deaths of 2,000/year in the Midwest alone by 2090.
An increase in property crime because cold suppresses property crime.
An increase of 1% in violent crime for every increase of 1 deg. C.
Electricity demand will increase by 5% overall as cooling needs far outweigh heating demand in their model.
They predict a sea level rise of 3.3 feet in the next century, with it possibly rising by 8.2 feet. They predict a sea level increase of 9.2 feet by 2200 but possibly as high as 32 feet.
Sea levels have been rising at 1 inch/decade = around 1 foot/century.
They use the hottest global climate model(even the cooler ones have been too warm) and most extreme, worst case scenario that they describe as "business as usual".
Below is how the global climate models have been doing
Global climate model projections too warm to much too warm.Please, can we adjust them so they match the real world authentic science, not the politics!!!
These really are paid government scientists, even though the report, reads more like science "fiction" to this atmospheric scientist.
For those that have been thinking that this was released by the Trump administration, it's just the opposite. These are the same ones that released a similar report 4 years ago. Only now, it's even more extreme/alarming.
Personally, I think part of it might be in rebellion to Trump not supporting their cause(withdrawing from the climate accord) so they ramped up the alarmism.
Some of the stuff in this report is insanely exaggerated and one sided. In realms with benefits, they often claim that evidence is inconclusive(like photosynthesis), so it doesn't show a benefit in this report. On most of the stuff they do cover, they use speculative models with extreme end assumptions............and as cfdr can tell you, you can get any result that you want from a model by plugging in whatever assumptions you tell the computer to make.
The last 40 years have featured the best weather/climate and CO2 conditions for life on this planet since the last time that it was this warm, 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period.
Red balloons in the graph below show (hundreds of) studies that found the MWP was warmer than the current warm period. Blue balloons indicate the MWP was colder than this.Green is wetter. Yellow is drier.
Over 100 studies from the Medieval Warm Period, most of which show the planet was this warm or warmer 1,000 years ago. It was also this warm 2,000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period and also just over 3,000 years ago, during the Minoan Warm period.Medieval Warm Period Project:
|MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials - CO2Science|
Figure Description: The distribution of Level 2 Studies that allow one to determine whether peak Medieval Warm Period temperatures were warmer than (red), equivalent ...
List of scientists whose work is sited:http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scientists.phpList of research institutions with work sited:http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/institutions.php
CO2 is currently at 408 parts per million. The benefits would max out at just over 1,000 ppm. We rescued the planet from dangerously low levels of 280 ppm. Going back to that level and decreasing the global temperature by 1 deg. C, where it was 150 years ago, would result in 1 billion people starving to death within 3 years from the 25%/year loss in world food production
They did get a couple of things right.
An increase in heavy downpours. There has been an increase in high end, heavy rain/flooding events.
When you warm the atmosphere by 1 deg. it can hold 5-7% more moisture.
They got wildfires right by being completely wrong. They attribute this to climate change and an increase in drought.
No, drought has not increased(it's decreased in the US and on the planet). The decade with the worst drought in the US was the 1930's by a very wide margin(ever hear of the Dust Bowl?).
The decade that had the 2nd worst widespread, long lasting droughts was the 1950's.........during global cooling.
In recent years, the US cornbelt has been setting drought records..........for the LEAST amount. In the last 30 years, the Cornbelt has only had 1 major, severe drought(2012) when the historical average had been 1 every 10 years. Best weather for growing crops since we've been growing crops. Note that they don't mention that.
What's caused wildfires to become more severe is the massive increase in growth and foliage from CO2 fertilization. When some of this dries out, it becomes massive fuel for wild fires.
At least they advised adaptation by cleaning the forecast floors, as Trump suggested......and got made fun of because he expressed it by using the term "raking" which was not the right verbiage.
From the report :
Higher temperatures will also kill more people, the report says. The Midwest alone, which is predicted to have the largest increase in extreme temperature, will see an additional 2,000 premature deaths per year by 2090.
There will be more mosquito- and tickborne diseases like Zika, dengue and chikungunya. West Nile cases are expected to more than double by 2050 due to increasing temperatures.
Expect asthma and allergies to be worse due to climate change. No one's health is immune from climate change, the report concludes. "People will be exposed to more foodborne and waterborne diseases. Particularly vulnerable to higher temperatures in the summer, children, the elderly, the poor and communities of color will be at a much greater risk for illness and death.
"Wildfire seasons -- already longer and more destructive than before -- could burn up to six times more forest area annually by 2050 in parts of the United States. Burned areas in Southwestern California alone could double by 2050.
"Dependable and safe water for the Hawaii, the Caribbean and others are threatened by these rising temperatures.
"Along the US coasts, public infrastructure and $1 trillion in national wealth held in real estate are threatened by rising sea levels, flooding and storm surges. Sea levels have already gone up 7 to 8 inches since 1900. Almost half that rise has been since 1993, a rate of rise greater than during any century in the past 2,800 years. Some countries are already seeing land underwater.
"Energy systems will be taxed, meaning more blackouts and power failures, and the potential loss in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of the century, the report said.
"The number of days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit will multiply; Chicago, where these days are rare, could start to resemble Phoenix or Las Vegas, with up to two months worth of these scorching-hot days.
"By midcentury, it's likely that the Arctic will lose all sea ice in late summer, and that could lead to more permafrost thaw, according to the report. As the permafrost thaws, more carbon dioxide and methane would be released, amplifying human-induced warming, "possibly significantly."
"As global temperatures rise, so will mental health issues, study says.
""The Defense Department is trying to understand what risk climate change poses to security. But the Trump administration has signaled that the country will pull out of international initiatives like the Paris climate accord, aimed at lowering global temperatures, claiming that these treaties have been unfair for the US economy."
Mike, many of the projections are for 2050 and 2090 and can be quite exaggerated, but even so, shouldn't we be concerned about the eventual effects ?
Mike, many of the projections are for 2050 and 2090 and can be quite exaggerated, but even so, shouldn't we be concerned about the eventual effects ?
Not mike here (obviously), but all this assumes that humans are a significant cause of current warming. This is not a safe assumption.
The science is "almost entirely" (the late Dr. Joanne Simpson's words) based on computer simulations, and "we all know how fragile " those simulations are.
I know how "fragile" they are. The computer models (of a non-linear, coupled chaotic system) are computer models that are curve-fit to poor quality proxy historical data. In order to curve-fit the models, fudge factors have to be introduced into the models. Not only that, but each model has its own unique fudge factor. It's not only that they do not know what feedback man made CO2 has, it is that each model has a different algorithm based on what the modeler guesses the physics consists of.
In other words - in simple terms - they don't know crap!
cf, answered … but not asked.
My question for Mike was shouldn't we be concerned about the eventual effects?
Yes, I'll be interested in Mike's answer too, but,
If we are to make government policy and impose taxes and regulations on the citizens, and if we are to base these taxes and regulations on scientific knowledge,
Shouldn't the science be better than junk science?
After all, they are talking about major life-style changes.
Il give you a more complete response when I get back to the computer.
There is no climate crisis.
They are basing everything on the climate models. I provided 2 different graphs above with model output from 2 different levels in the atmosphere so you can see the comparison with actual temperatures.........and the real warming has been slowing down even more since then.....but the same models are used.
This report, incredulously uses the warmest of all the too warm climate models for its predictions. It makes me very, very sad that they are doing this to fellow Americans.
Mike, what makes me angry is that they are screwing with science. They are prostituting science to politics.
It's a very sad time in our country and planet. Our climate scientists have traded the scientific method in for political agenda.
The facts couldn't be more clear. They are completely ignoring authentic science, empirical data and observations and basing everything on models programmed to show the results they need.
Projecting out to the year 2100 and 2200 means there is never any accountability because we will all be dead before seeing if their forecasts are correct(they have been wrong about most things so far).
Using climate science, a field that a tiny fraction of people understand and have records to verify what's really happening and climate models that few people understand is the perfect way to operate with impunity.
When people like me question some of the junk science, instead of providing legit explanations.........they attack and call us deniers and flat earthers.
So people like me MUST speak out and show the authentic data, so that they can't get away with hijacking climate science and taking advantage of people for an agenda.
Unlike them, I am always willing to show proof of every statement made.
By request Here’s source of the top line conclusion of US National Climate Assessment, 10% damage to US GDP It’s derived from a study funded by Tom Steyer et al. The 15 deg F temp increase is 2x most extreme value reported elsewhere in the report (95th percentile of RCP 8.5)
Replying to @RogerPielkeJr
What justification for 15 F increase? More than double RCP8.8 which Ritchie & Dowlatabadi 2016 show is already extremely unlikely as far exceeding economic coal resources? Noble Cause Corruption in the name of science? http://www.rff.org/files/document/file/RFF-DP-16-45.pdf …
7:09 PM - 24 Nov 2018
Shouldn’t such an outlandish, outlier conclusion been caught in the review process? Not a good look that sole review editor for this chapter is an alum of the Center for American Progress ... which is funded by Tom Steyer. Even rudimentary attention to COI would avoided this.
Replying to @RogerPielkeJr
It's hard for most people to imagine they would intentionally do this but they continue to use computer model projections that are getting more and more busted to get the results they need to show.
It's not been as bad as they predicted and they have not had the response they hoped for, so this report, increases the extremes in the already too extreme predictions.
Absolutely nothing got worse in the real world since the last report. Everything was better then predicted in most realms. The only thing that changed in the last 4 years, is that they dialed in different numbers to models to get results that were more extreme.
I've spent most of my day, for almost 36 years analyzing US and global weather/climate. This is why I know what they are doing. It's is absolutely not based on what's been happening............the best weather for life and growing crops since the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago, that was this warm too.
The climate has changed............for the better the past 40 years. Global drought is lower. Crop yields are soaring. Temperatures have become more favorable for life and can warm at this rate for another 100 years without causing serious issues.
The ability for CO2 to warm the atmosphere is logarithmic. The more you add, the less the warming.
The first 1 degree of warming, if it was all from CO2(it likely wasn't) required CO2 to increase 128 parts per million. That means, to warm another 1 deg. C, we would need to add an additional 256(double) ppm of CO2. ............but that "might happen in another 100 years at the earliest.........and warming that little and at that slow of a rate is not going to be a big problem.
We're likely to run out of fossil fuels before that happens and more likely to be developing alternative energy sources before then.
Regardless, this report, that uses warming of 15 deg. F to estimate damages later this century is in the outer limits. I actually think that by using these outrageous numbers, they shot themselves in the foot. It's means that they have completely left the realm of authentic science by such a large amount, that we can no longer assume that its anything but intentional. These are just scientists cherry picking studies from like minded scientists, completely ignoring all studies that contradict them and programming computers to simulate a future world which they want us to believe will happen.
So taxing fossil fuels has to be done right now to generate trillions of dollars.
The more logical explanation is twofold. First, the effects of CO2 and positive feedback from water vapour have been far over estimated. Secondly, even doubling or tripling the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere would not appreciably change the warming effects of the CO2 levels we have currently… and then not by much. This isn’t me making numbers up, it is just a matter of extending the IPCC claims and putting them in perspective to show that the worst is already behind us, and is over estimated in any event. Even if the estimates of CO2 warming were correct (which they clearly are not) the fact is the bulk of the damage (if any) has already happened, and the amount of fossil fuels we would have to burn to appreciably change that is completely beyond our production capacity.
I will respond to some specific items in your text:
"Energy systems will be taxed, meaning more blackouts and power failures, and the potential loss in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of the century, the report said."
So they want us to drastically cut our use of cheap, reliable and abundant fossil fuels for energy............how do you think that's going to work out, especially since they claim that the CO2 we emit, stays in the atmosphere for over 100 years?
A growing need for power to cool houses, which is what I assume they are referring to and they want us to cut back on our sources to generate that power.........hmmm.
Keep in mind that CO2 is well mixed in the global atmosphere and China and India are increasing their emissions at a rate much greater than all the other potential cuts combined.
Even if the Climate Accord science was correct on CO2, actions by the US would effect global temperature by, maybe .1 Deg C. Do you think that will cause us to avoid the black outs and power failures?
They will just be much sooner and more severe. I'm perfectly good with replacing fossil fuels.............but not until we have something at least as good.
"The number of days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit will multiply; Chicago, where these days are rare, could start to resemble Phoenix or Las Vegas, with up to two months worth of these scorching-hot days."
This is a fairy tale. Chicago being similar to Phoenix weather? Having up to 2 months worth of 100 degree days?
I can show you this is junk science. We've had 1 deg. C of global warming in the last 100 years, so there should be a definitive trend if what they say is true, right?
10 Hottest Weather Temperature Days in Chicago History
1. July 24, 1934 - 105
2. July 13, 1995 - 104
2. June 20, 1988 - 104
2. June 20, 1953 - 104
5. June 25, 1988 - 103
5. July 21, 1901 - 103
5. July 1, 1956 - 103
Chicago’s Temperature Records
Number of Days of 100 degrees or More by Decade.....no trend!!!
(the 1940's-50's featured global cooling)
"the Trump administration has signaled that the country will pull out of international initiatives like the Paris climate accord, aimed at lowering global temperatures, claiming that these treaties have been unfair for the US economy."
I have a copy of the Climate Accord in front of me, on my desk. The agreement allows China to continue to increase CO2 emissions until 2030 and India, claims that it will not make cuts until it receives a trillion dollars from the green climate fund of the Climate Accord............guess who they were expecting to get the money from(and China gets our money under the agreement too).
Even if these countries did makes substantial cuts, the effects on global warming would be tiny. The Climate Accord is not about that. That's a facade. It's a global rebalancing of power and money, using sustainable development principles and equality, with all the worlds countries following the leadership of the United Nations.
I like helping the poor a great deal but the objective in the Accord is to deprive the US of its life blood, fossil fuels to slow its economy and reduce its excessive consumption of natural resources.
Why India Thinks A Trillion-Dollar Price Tag Is Worth Staying In The Paris Climate Accord
THE TRUTH about the Climate Accord:
1. The US has cut its CO2 emissions more than any other country over the last decade.......without a Climate Accord.
2. China now emits double the CO2 emissions as the US does here in 2018 and the Climate Accord allows them to continue to increase their CO2 emissions until the year 2030.3. The Green Climate Fund is a big joke. It supposedly exists to assist undeveloped countries in adapting to Climate Change. What do the poor countries need to adapt to when the last 40 years have featured the best weather and climate since the Medieval Warm Period, 1000 years ago.........the last time that it was this warm?
Status of Pledges and Contributions made to the Green ClimateFundhttps://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19
Note: The Obama pledge is 30% of the entire worlds pledge to the Green Climate Fund..............why wouldn't the entire world be upset that the US withdrew?Also note: China is not on the list of countries pledging money. The tan colored bar below was the US contribution under Obama. The blue bars are the rest of the world and of course many countries did not contribute at all........instead they get our money.
"Along the US coasts, public infrastructure and $1 trillion in national wealth held in real estate are threatened by rising sea levels, flooding and storm surges. Sea levels have already gone up 7 to 8 inches since 1900. Almost half that rise has been since 1993, a rate of rise greater than during any century in the past 2,800 years. Some countries are already seeing land underwater. "
Really now, some countries are already seeing land underwater from an increase of 8 inches?
It looks like they are basing their estimates of damage on the high end projection of sea level increase of +8.2 feet in 2100. +32 feet in 2200.
Sea levels may have accelerated a tiny bit recently from the 1 inch/decade rise over the last century. Those are the facts. I posted a graph of sea level increase previously.
I have no problem with forecasts that suggest we might accelerate the sea level increase and it could be...........let's say 2 feet higher, worst case scenario in 100 years.
"Wildfire seasons -- already longer and more destructive than before -- could burn up to six times more forest area annually by 2050 in parts of the United States. Burned areas in Southwestern California alone could double by 2050.
The main reason for the increase in wildfires, the increase in CO2 and atmospheric fertilization, providing more fuel was mentioned.
You will note that they don't have any wildfires in the desert (-:
"There will be more mosquito- and tickborne diseases like Zika, dengue and chikungunya. West Nile cases are expected to more than double by 2050 due to increasing temperatures. Expect asthma and allergies to be worse due to climate change. No one's health is immune from climate change, the report concludes. "People will be exposed to more foodborne and waterborne diseases. Particularly vulnerable to higher temperatures in the summer, children, the elderly, the poor and communities of color will be at a much greater risk for illness and death."
Have you ever noticed the unsaid rule, regarding the increase in CO2 and global warming with regards to how it affects life?
It greatly harms good life...........humans, polar bears, bunny rabbits, butterflys, crops...etc but bad life thrives on it, ticks, mosquitoes, weeds, bacteria, virus's, diseases/
Fact is, almost all life, including humans does better but we only hear about the bad life doing better.
Speaking of the global warming mascot, polar bears, let's see how they've been doing lately:
"In 2005, the official global polar bear estimate was about 22,500.
Since 2005, however, the estimated global polar bear population has risen by more than 30% to about 30,000 bears, far and away the highest estimate in more than 50 years.
A growing number of observational studies have documented that polar bears are thriving, despite shrinking summer sea ice."
Anybody see any news of this covered???
No, they want us to think that global warming is threatening polar bears and models they program, still show that this will happen.
"Higher temperatures will also kill more people, the report says. The Midwest alone, which is predicted to have the largest increase in extreme temperature, will see an additional 2,000 premature deaths per year by 2090."
Forget the fact that many studies show that cold kills more than heat and that people have air conditioning.
"Dependable and safe water for the Hawaii, the Caribbean and others are threatened by these rising temperatures."
I'm guessing that they are predicting that rising seas will cause salt water to invade fresh water sources inland.
The likelihood of that happening has similar odds of their climate model and other models and forecasts verifying.
For some of the things they warn of, my educated guess for them to verify from an atmospheric scientists point of view is less than 1 in 1,000.
Stuff like Chicago having Summer weather similar to Phoenix is more like 1 in 100,000.
The report also states: "Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield."
See the first post of this thread that deals with that statement.
Thanks Mike. Sorry lo put you to all that trouble … but that's what I'm here for. (G)
You are well worth it and I consider it an obligation to share the truth on this. When I send this stuff out by email to people, there are a couple of different responses I get.
1. OMG, I never read or ever saw any of this stuff before. Thank you very much!
2. Please don't send me anything else about climate change. I
a. Don't give a darn
b. Think you are wrong and you will never change my mind
In this case Carl, you have done me a tremendous favor.
I have a 1 hour discussion on Relevant Radio tomorrow, starting at 4pm about this topic/report. There will be another individual there who represents the environmental side(I am actually an environmentalist) but he is a public speaker and his views on climate change and probably this report will probably contradict mine.
You have provided some insight for me to understand parts of the report that are the most disturbing to people reading it.
If tomorrow, I'm presented with the same points that you copied earlier, I can't say..........hey, wait a few minutes while I get on my computer to find the statics for 100 degree days in Chicago to prove that its not getting worse.
At least I have some additional ammo in the form of authentic scientific proof to show this report is very bad science........no, its not science at all, its a political report masking as science.
"During the 2016 election cycle, Steyer again topped all other political donors by spending $89,794,744. His NextGen Climate Action SuperPAC spent $33,119,385, leading all organizations funding outside spending groups."
Below is the study that his group was listed as being a source of funding for, which provided much of this reports over the top/completely outside of any previous worst case scenario estimates for widespread, catastrophic damages by later this century:
Since me or anybody else will never be able to prove a connection, this will be the only time that I refer to it............instead using only authentic (climate) science to show verifyable facts.
After spending the entire day researching this report and scratching my head about how they could have possibly come up with some of these results(some of which have no support from any legit scientific data-=which I have spent 20 years studying=so I know what's out there) here is what I found.
They state this:
"The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences."
Based on their discussions in the report, they did get input from numerous sources. In several places, they provide the view of 2 sides. However, in almost every realm, they cherry picked the results and chose the most extreme, catastrophic, worst case scenario outcome(much of which was considered "business as usual" by them). .....while completely disregarding the evidence that strongly contradicted their projection and at times, even contradicted their own previous discussion on the topic.
It's crystal clear that they had already decided to send a message with this report before it was compiled..........and the message was not "we want to share with you the latest authentic information on climate change" as they are presenting to the public.
The message is, "we need you to act now in order to cut back on the use of fossil fuels to save the planet"(which, in reality has been experiencing the best weather/climate in the last 1,000 years for life and growing crops)
Their mentality is: "If we need to blatantly distort the science to scare the heck out of Americans using an end justifies the means mentality............then so be it."
Wonderful question, glad you asked. Others have asked the same thing.
The individuals/groups responsible for issuing these reports are not under the jurisdiction of Trump.
They are the same ones that were in the same positions when Obama was president and likely well before him.
Many of them are part of the bureaucratic leadership which, at this time is often at odds with Trumps agenda. Many are in career type positions.
Trump cannot just fire these people and replace them with like minded people, like everybody thinks he does. There are laws that protect their jobs and in the absence of legit reasons to can them..........they stay.
In this case, Trump has taken a strong stand against the case for catastrophic climate change and pulled out of the climate accord. Most climate scientists work for governments, including ours and the past 20 years has featured the best of times for them because of the climate change hysteria.
Tens of billions in funding for grants and studies and job security as extreme weather and climate change from humans is now the most important scientific cause on the planet.
This has also caused every Tom, Dick and Harry scientist to call themselves a "climate scientist" or do a study that has climate change as part of it.
I believe that most climate scientists are honest people. However, they are not little Mother Theresa's with purely altruistic motives out to save the planet using the scientific method.
They are just as political as everybody else and money, job security has great meaning in their lives too.
As human beings, they may very well be sincere about this cause.............but it's causing them to become blatantly biased to the point of losing touch with the scientific method. Defending previous positions with a belief system has resulted in the interpretation of information in one sided fashion................even seeking out of data that supports what they want to believe. Completely losing touch with the real world(observations) and living in a world of speculative models based on theories that project the future, programmed with the assumptions of the modeler(which determines the end product) and most importantly, not being held accountable with a reconciling of the projections to the observations because the time frame(s) being decades to a century from now are so distant.
This report is the quintessential example of it. It's a backlash (push back) against Trump for his trying to minimize the importance of climate change/science..
This is their job security.
Claiming that Chicago's weather will be like Phoenix in the Summer and that the affects of CO2 on crops is uncertain, are just a couple a couple of the most blatant unscientific statements that I've heard in my life.............but they are in the report.
The chance of the weather in Chicago being like Phoenix in 100 years, is around 1 in 10,000. Just the location with respect to the Gulf of Mexico and rains makes it almost impossible.
The chance of CO2 not continuing to massively contribute to the increase in crop yields is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or smaller.
Thousands of scientific studies with elevated CO2 levels all show this.
The law of photosynthesis and the key role of CO2 is a scientific fact that's up there with gravity.
Sun + H2O + CO2 +Minerals = Sugars(food) + O2
They also mentioned that tornadoes have increased during tornado outbreaks from climate change. As mentioned earlier, part of this is likely because Doppler radar can now detect and record the weaker tornadoes(as well as people with cell phones) that went undetected before the 1990's.
The strong and violent tornadoes have plunged because of climate change. Since the peak in these kind of tornadoes in the 1970's, many hundreds of lives have been saved. Thousands of injuries avoided and many billions less in property damage.
However, this year ALL tornadoes have dropped.
As of late November 2018, we are about tied for the record for least amount of tornadoes recorded for the year:
"If climate alarmists are correct that the debate is over, why can’t they prove it using scientific data?"
"The ultimate test for a climate model is the accuracy of its predictions....Climate models as a group have been ‘running hot,’ predicting about 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred over 1998–2014."
"Climate alarmists’ numerous predictions about extreme weather have also been utterly incorrect."
We got the science wrong for the past 30 years but we want you to keep believing our reports............which have become even scarier in order to convince you.
The NCA report, as stated previously, picked this particular paper to make much of its predictions:
"There’s a saying in computer science—“garbage in, garbage out” (GIGO)"
"A recent paper in Science, “Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States,” brings GIGO to mind. The paper, much heralded by the press, claims the damages from human-caused climate change have been woefully underestimated by previous analyses. The mainstream media displayed its usual fawning deference to the authors’ conclusions, displaying nary an iota of skepticism."
"Still the study itself, and the scientists quoted in the press coverage surrounding it, follow a narrative developed and strictly enforced by climate alarmists (including those who fashion themselves environmental “journalists”): the effects of climate change can only be bad (ignore any possible beneficial affects); where there are uncertainties or factors that can’t be adequately accounted for, the effects can only be worse than previously expected or projected, never better; and finally, as Kummer writes, “the only true experts are those writing about extreme adverse effects of warming. No matter how eminent, anyone speaking otherwise is bogus.”
Here are a couple of 1 hour shows that I was invited on this past week( awesome Catholic radio, Drew Mariana show) to discuss the report/climate change. At the first link, the climate change part doesn't start until 15 minutes in.
Great job Mike. I agree with you 100%.
Carl, we are lucky to have Mike on this board even luckier that he is the moderator. And yet you still cling to all the algore predictions. Is that because Trump is running things? If this was Clinton or Obama's viewpoint after analysis of available data, would you toe the line of whatever they promoted. The corruption in this country is off the charts. Every 3 letter agency needs to be broken apart and scattered into 1000 pieces. The fact that 10's of billions of dollars get spent on black ops no matter what side is in with no accountability each and every year. How do you turn that around?
I really think that Carl is open minded and objective about this.
Most from his side have already decided and cling to narratives and the sources gal-lour which post junk and wrong science, which is most of the media, then decide to not believe any of the authentic science I present.
Carl on the other hand, will post the stuff from the other side, like he did in this thread but rather than argue or dispute the data, he thanks me and I feel like he was paying attention......learning.
If you believed in the catastrophic version of climate change(which is what is being sold to Americans and the world by the majority of sources,, then a mind blowing report like this came out, supposedly representing the overwhelming consensus of scientific minds and you did not have access to data that contradicted it...........why wouldn't you believe all this stuff?
CO2 is a beneficial gas in all realms of science..........biology, agronomy. zoology, etc. The only realm in which its pollution is politics.
They say that you can never win an argument about religion or politics and evidence of that is right here.
However, since CO2's effects and climate science are actually science, not politics, I can win every time.
People may choose to not believe the science/facts but they are not my opinions as in politics. The number of tornadoes reported this year or the past 50 years are not my opinion...........neither are historical hurricane stats. The planet greening up based on numerous comprehensive, scientific measurements/studies or the results of thousands of studies on plants from CO2 are not my opinion.
The increase in sea levels and climate model projections of temperatures compared to the observations are not my opinion, nor is the Medieval Warm Period.
The data is the data.
One side hides the data and gives you opinions based on computers programmed to simulate the atmosphere based on a speculative theory.
I'm very happy to show you their opinion and their speculative theories(which we just got a report on).............but then I show the data.
It's like climate scientist Roy Spencer once jokingly titled in an article:
Sat 12/1/2018, 1:33 PM
Listening to the “debate” yesterday about CO2(on Relevant radio) I thought of the bible passage Matt. 23:24: ...straining out a [CO2] gnat and swallowing a camel [water vapor].
I know that CO2 are at moderate levels, historically speaking, and is good for my garden.
There are much bigger climate issues when it comes to the planets food supply and that is Global Cooling which I believe we are entering into based on the science noted at the two websites below:
These warming/cooling cycles are caused by the sun, NOT man.
IF I had a choice, I would choose warming any time… which produces more rain and plant growth for the food supply.
Checkout the movement of the North Magnetic Pole, picking up speed, in the picture below from this site:
Some think that we might be in the beginning (1st 100 years) of a polar flip that can be as long as 1000 years to complete.
Think about it. I live in Cupertino, in northern CA. As the North Magnetic Pole moves away from me, my weather is becoming more like the Los Angles weather (warmer) relatively speaking.
However, on the other side of the planet, the North Magnetic Pole is getting closer to Europe (west & east), taking the jet stream with it, hence getting colder.
There is so, so, so much that we don't understand about what effects the climate. One side, bases everything on knowing everything, which means all they need to do is represent that knowledge with all the right mathematical equations.......program that into global climate models....then solve the equations on a super computer to get a simulation of the atmosphere for the next 100 years.
Thats the main body of evidence for all the catastrophic end points............extreme warming and its dire consequences. It's not happening in the real world but has been for a couple of decades in the computer programmed world.
So are we entering another Maunder Minimum and resulting Little Ice Age from the drop in solar activity, weaker solar wind and increase in galactic cosmic rays,(since the solar wind modulates galactic cosmic rays) which serves as condensation nuclei for increased clouds...........which then reflect back enough short wave, warming sunshine to cool the planet?
We haven't been around long enough to know. We didn't have technological gadgets during the Little Ice Age to measure galactic cosmic rays in order to know if that was a big factor.
We do know that oceans have 1,000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere and store heat for many decades. This means, the heat from last centuries grand solar maximum(that could have warmed the planet, with lower GCR's) that went into the oceans is still coming out.
This thermal inertia, like a huge ship, turning in the ocean means that cooling affects from the sun, if any may take a couple of decades to be noticeable(as the oceans continue to burp out the excessive heat from last century's warming).
Maybe the warming pause/slow down is part of that?
We can't know how much of the warming was from the sun and how much from the physics of CO2(which operates on a logarithmic scale-meaning the more CO2 you add, the less the affect).
However, given another decade of low solar activity and increasing CO2 will tell us MUCH more just by observing and taking note of what happens.
Why the rush by one side to push actions to tax and cut CO2 emissions? The claim is that our CO2 stays in the air for 100+ years. Sorry, the scientific, peer reviewed studies cluster between 5-15 years for this. We certainly could wait for another decade to understand more before acting. If, suddenly the atmosphere started warming like the models have predicted............then, we could cut CO2 and 5-15 years later, the atmosphere would start cooling off before all these disasters hit.
There is no magical "tipping point" where the warming will suddenly spiral out of control with positive feedbacks. We were told that +2 deg. C was that point 15 years ago and we had to act then to prevent reaching that point and this was absolute confidence.
The warming slowed down and now, the new point is +1.5 deg. C and now the confidence is even higher.
Nothing bad is happening but we are told that things are much worse than predicted. Every storm, drought and even cold is blamed on climate change. There has been nothing at all unusual about recent extreme weather. Many things have been better than recent centuries. Heavy rains have been 1 item that has been worse....however, benefits have outweighed negatives by a 10 to 1 margin for life(not as much for human life on the coast lines but the rest of life) .
As an operational meteorologist the past 40 years, I can tell you that the weather/climate has been the best for life since the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago. It didn't get that name WARM period because the people of that time were deniers-history didn't make up the Vikings settling in Greenland on land that became covered in ice again when the Little Ice age hit several hundred years later-that stuff really happened!
This time, we will have the latest technology to observe, record and analyze what happens.
Before we make any assumptions and especially before we take actions that will cost trillions, we should wait until the data tells us the models might be right(instead of the opposite) then base our decisions on correct models, not currently busted, speculative models.
"I really think that Carl is open minded and objective about this."
Thanks, Mike. Very few of my beliefs are set in concrete. You made you case with reams of facts and charts and have convinced me.
My son-in-law changed my mind about concealed-carry with statistics and case histories. (No, I have not joined the NRA!)
However, nothing I've read here about the things that the Cons are so passionate about has budged me. Conjecture, opinion and flights of fancy just doesn't cut it with me.
I thought I read you right.
You're in good company. Alex (the previous moderator and owner of MarketForum)was pretty liberal on most issues and believed in catastrophic climate change. He changed his belief from looking at all the data here and even created a special section in the library called "Climate Talk" that had all my climate posts.
Sad thing that it's so political and many people that don't believe in catastrophic climate change on the right, don't understand the science but only take that position because thats how people on the right think.
So I cringe when ill informed people that agree with me, state ignorant things about the science and its perceived by those that disagree, as an example that those that disagree are wrong.
This example if just for you!
So Trump has this one right but not because he understands climate. His constant tweets about how the cold weather is evidence of it being a hoax or evidence against global warming is extraordinarily counterproductive.
Not just because its insanely wrong about the actual science but it makes others think that some people like me who understand the science think this way..................and people who don't understand the science but believe Trump, only get dumber about climate science if this causes them to think cold weather outbreaks have any meaning in the discussion.
On his pulling out of the Climate Accord, however, he has this right and for most of the right reasons. It's a blatantly one sided agreement that greatly punishes the US with drastically cutting emissions and many billions of dollars in cost, while countries like China(and India) not only get to increase emissions but get our money.
More evidence from this thread today that the government climate report released 2 weeks ago was bonkers.
As a reminder, the government is predicting that the weather in Chicago will be like Phoenix at the turn of the century, with similar 100 degree days in the Summer for 2 months.
They also predict corn yields falling 25% and soybean yields falling 25% in some places because of the same elements that have INCREASED yields for most crops by 25% and reduced extreme high temperatures in the Cornbelt over the past 30 years. 100 degree days have fallen, not increased.