Extreme global weather is 'the face of climate change' says leading scientist

[furrowtickler]

If the price of energy goes up for any reason whether by market forces or taxation, consumption goes down. If fossil energy consumption goes down, emissions go down. If taxes and revenues are used to encourage the development of clean technology and implementation then we will replace fossil energy.

Remember Steven Harper signed a G7 agreement that Canada would stop using fossil energy by 2100.

Toyota has a plan to have zero emissions on all its cars and production facilities by 2050.

The transition is well underway and we will all be long dead before it is complete. This is a long term issue, your life will be mostly unaffected unless you were born in the last few years.

This is all going to happen regardless of the carbon tax ... hello !!!! In fact as you pointed out it’s been on the go for many years, it’s a good thing to switch out fossil fuels wherever it is feasible.... everyone agrees with that . This carbon tax is not going to do a thing to change climate , it is a wealth transfer scheme encouraged by the UN ..... end of story dude ...

[jazz]

Let me know when you find a study that shows that Mann's original conclusions were wrong.

Easy. The climate models at the same time Mann came up with his stick graph predicted a 4 degree warming by this year. Thats 20 yrs ago. The evidence says that has not happened. Discredited.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442

Plus I might add, incidences of hurricanes drastically lower and this years tornado season was a bust.

If I am wrong and there is truly a cataclysmic event going to happen, the models still says thats decades away. By that time we will have naturally transitioned some of our energy to renewable as they make economic sense and averted the diaster anyway. But paying carbon taxes that go to china is never something I will agree with.

If scientists want to stop global warming, they should get out of their cushy offices and hand out condoms.

[chuckChuck]

Easy. The climate models at the same time Mann came up with his stick graph predicted a 4 degree warming by this year. Thats 20 yrs ago. The evidence says that has not happened. Discredited.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442

Plus I might add, incidences of hurricanes drastically lower and this years tornado season was a bust.

If I am wrong and there is truly a cataclysmic event going to happen, the models still says thats decades away. By that time we will have naturally transitioned some of our energy to renewable as they make economic sense and averted the diaster anyway. But paying carbon taxes that go to china is never something I will agree with.

If scientists want to stop global warming, they should get out of their cushy offices and hand out condoms.

Both authors of this opinion piece work for the Cato institute which is a libertarian conservative think tank originally started by the Charles Koch Foundation. This is political opinion, not peer reviewed published climate science or proof of anything. The attached article shows that they are basically lying about Hansen's predictions and global warming. They work for the oil industry!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction

30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction

Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie

Dana Nuccitelli

Mon 25 Jun 2018 11.00 BST
Last modified on Wed 27 Jun 2018 05.39 BST

Thirty years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.

Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.

The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.
Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative
In the WSJ, deniers again lie about Hansen

The incredible accuracy of Hansen’s climate model predictions debunks a number of climate denier myths. It shows that climate models are accurate and reliable, that global warming is proceeding as climate scientists predicted, and thus that we should probably start listening to them and take action to address the existential threat it poses.

Hansen’s predictions have thus become a target of climate denier misinformation. It began way back in 1998, when the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels – who has admitted that something like 40% of his salary comes from the fossil fuel industry – arguably committed perjury in testimony to Congress. Invited by Republicans to testify as the Kyoto Protocol climate agreement was in the works, Michaels was asked to evaluate how Hansen’s predictions were faring 10 years later.

In his presentation, Michaels deleted Hansen’s Scenarios B and C – the ones closest to reality – and only showed Scenario A to make it seem as though Hansen had drastically over-predicted global warming. Deleting inconvenient data in order to fool his audience became a habit for Patrick Michaels, who quickly earned a reputation of dishonesty in the climate science world, but has nevertheless remained a favorite of oil industry and conservative media.

Last week in the Wall Street Journal, Michaels was joined by Ryan Maue in an op-ed that again grossly distorted Hansen’s 1988 paper. Maue is a young scientist with a contrarian streak who’s published some serious research on hurricanes, but since joining the Cato Institute last year, seems to have sold off his remaining credibility to the fossil fuel industry.

In their WSJ opinion piece, Michaels and Maue claimed:

Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect.

They provided no evidence to support this claim (evidence and facts seem not to be allowed on the WSJ Opinion page), and it takes just 30 seconds to fact check. In reality, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.35°C since 2000 – precisely in line with Hansen’s 1988 model projections, as shown above. And it’s unscientific to simply “discount” the El Niño of 2015-16, because between the years 1999 and 2014, seven were cooled by La Niña events while just four experienced an El Niño warming. Yet despite the preponderance of La Niña events, global surface temperatures still warmed 0.15°C during that time. There’s simply not an ounce of truth to Michaels’ and Maue’s central WSJ claim.

Andrew Dessler (@AndrewDessler)

Dumbest sentence in WSJ oped: "Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16."

Translation: "Temperature has not increased if you omit the data showing it has increased."
June 22, 2018

It’s also worth noting that Hansen’s 1988 paper accurately predicted the geographic pattern of global warming, with the Arctic region warming fastest and more warming over land masses than the oceans. And climate deniers in the 1980s like Richard Lindzen were predicting “that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small.” If anyone deserves criticism for inaccurate climate predictions, it’s deniers like Lindzen who thought there wouldn’t be any significant warming, when in reality we’ve seen the dramatic global warming that James Hansen predicted.

Michaels’ and Maue’s misinformation didn’t stop there:

And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

Once again, this unsupported assertion is completely wrong. I evaluated the IPCC’s global warming projections in my book, and showed in detail that theirs have been among the most accurate predictions. The climate model temperature projections in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports were all remarkably accurate; the IPCC predicted global warming almost exactly right.
Why lie? To keep cashing Koch paychecks

We don’t even have to guess at the motivation behind Michaels’ and Maue’s misinformation; they give it away toward the end of their opinion piece, asking:

Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

Michaels and Maue don’t want us to cut carbon pollution, and it’s easy to understand why. They work for the Cato Institute, which was co-founded by and is heavily controlled by the Koch brothers, who have donated more than $30 million to Cato. As Michaels admitted, they’re basically fossil fuel industry employees.

But the answers to their question are simple. As climate scientists have predicted for decades, global temperatures are rising dangerously rapidly. Moreover, research has shown that the economic benefits of cutting carbon pollution far outweigh the costs.

Michaels and Maue want us to bet the future of all life on Earth. They want us to put all our chips on black – a bet that burning billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal every year won’t cause dangerous climate change. They want us to make that bet even though their arguments are based on unsupported lies, whilst they cash paychecks from the Koch brothers.

We would have to be incredible suckers to take their bet.

[burnt]

So, chucky, you still haven't answered a couple of very simple but key questions:

1) By what percentage will a Canadian carbon tax reduce worldwide CO2 emissions - how much will such a tax affect your "Mann-made climate change"?

2) What is your investment so far in solar power to replace your personal dependency of carbon based fuels? Such an adamant believer in climate fear-mongering must surely have taken all possible steps to save the planet.

Chucky hasn't responded to my other questions to him so he may have blocked me. Because surely they aren't that tough to answer...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Since I doubt anyone has actually had the patience to follow this thread, I will summarize.

• No standard of proof offering a dissenting point of view will ever be high enough to meet Chucks standards.
• There are no standards if the proof supports Chucks point of view.
• Everyone who disagrees with Chucks point of view is obviously mentally challenged, and payed by big oil.
• Do as I say, not as I do.

What else did I miss?

[wd9]

You can go directly to NCEI and view the information and plot however you want directly from the source without any "interpretation". Takes a while for data to be compiled and displayed.

But who knows, the next 100 years may show temps going back down that 3 degrees to where it was in 1895.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tavg/12/12/1895-2018?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear =2000 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tavg/12/12/1895-2018?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear =2000

[jazz]

If the world is warming and that is certainly debatable, the same people who want to save it now are the ones responsible for it. So why should I help?

Your politicians have supported uncontrolled population growth and immigration in the search for a younger demographic and larger tax base to exploit. The have suppressed technologies that could offset it. At the same time they instituted a globalized economic structure that relies heavily on transporting raw materials from first world countries to 3rd world ones and returning finished goods back again. Those goods are being created in countries with no environmental standards when they could be produced at home in a regulated system while creating a job or two.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Although Chuck seems to have disappeared again, I will respond anyways.

Some cold day next winter when I have some time, I will cut and paste and reference a bunch of peer reviewed papers which refute every alarmist claim Chuck makes. Unfortunately, that is not so easy to do on a 2" by 2" blackberry screen while bouncing around baling hay in July, so it will have to wait.


But, what I don't understand is why he continues to label myself, and most other posters here as deniers? I posted the proof of beneficial climate change (albeit local, not global) from Lacombe, I am pleased to report that the globe has been warming on many time scales, from decadal to millenial. I would never be so ignorant as to claim that there is no warming or change. I do however vehemently debate the C in the CAGW theory. There is nothing catastrophic about it, quite the opposite, the results have been almost universally beneficial to humankind and life on earth. I debate the A for Anthropogenic, that is not a provable hypothesis, there is no control we can use in this experiment. Yes, we have increased the amount of beneficial CO2 in the atmosphere, but the correlation to temperatures stubbornly refuses to cooperate with what the results were supposed to be if CO2 was the main driver of the warming.


The GW part is not up for debate, but it is certainly not within our power to control.

And most importantly, if all that he claims is true, then the proposed solution will only make it worse. He wants to punish industry in the first world where environmental standards are strict, forcing manufacturing off-shore to where environmental standards are often completely lacking. Does he think that if you can't see it happening in your own back yard, that it doesn't exist?

[chuckChuck]

Although Chuck seems to have disappeared again, I will respond anyways.

Some cold day next winter when I have some time, I will cut and paste and reference a bunch of peer reviewed papers which refute every alarmist claim Chuck makes. Unfortunately, that is not so easy to do on a 2" by 2" blackberry screen while bouncing around baling hay in July, so it will have to wait.


But, what I don't understand is why he continues to label myself, and most other posters here as deniers? I posted the proof of beneficial climate change (albeit local, not global) from Lacombe, I am pleased to report that the globe has been warming on many time scales, from decadal to millenial. I would never be so ignorant as to claim that there is no warming or change. I do however vehemently debate the C in the CAGW theory. There is nothing catastrophic about it, quite the opposite, the results have been almost universally beneficial to humankind and life on earth. I debate the A for Anthropogenic, that is not a provable hypothesis, there is no control we can use in this experiment. Yes, we have increased the amount of beneficial CO2 in the atmosphere, but the correlation to temperatures stubbornly refuses to cooperate with what the results were supposed to be if CO2 was the main driver of the warming.


The GW part is not up for debate, but it is certainly not within our power to control.

And most importantly, if all that he claims is true, then the proposed solution will only make it worse. He wants to punish industry in the first world where environmental standards are strict, forcing manufacturing off-shore to where environmental standards are often completely lacking. Does he think that if you can't see it happening in your own back yard, that it doesn't exist?

You are not the only one that is busy. If you haven't heard harvest is coming fast.

You have had lots of time in the past 12 months to produce a study that shows that climate change is not partly caused by greenhouse gases and other human impacts on earth. I don't remember seeing one from you and if you posted it earlier you can go retrieve it.

This is not the time of year to debate in depth so I will give you some more time.

In the mean time suggesting that climate change has been universally beneficial to all inhabitants on earth is quite a statement. Since scientists have been predicting that climate change will increase the frequency of drought and forest fires and we are seeing this play out in real time along with unusual weather patterns it is quite clear that many people are suffering severely.

Well there may be areas that benefit in some ways from warming, making generalized statements that everyone will benefit shows that you are not very observant or uninformed. Go tell that to the small pacific island inhabitants whose islands are at severe threat to flooding from rising sea levels.

Of course you don't believe NOAA's sea level predictions because you couldn't find any data to back up their web page claims. Lame lame lame!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, could you please address this issue of labelling myself as a denier? What is it that you think I am denying?