We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Gabriel Vargas • 11 months ago

they are creating a bubble, all people the invest on coal today will be lost a lot money on the following years. they don't see the solar and wind will get so cheap, the nobody will buy your coal.

Richard A. Fletcher • 2 months ago

delivered from the great economist, Bjorn Lomborg, “Paris is Not the Solution by Bjørn Lomborg - Project Syndicate”, http://bit.ly/2uDwRzA, Lomborg is the Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”...

But if green energy were already competitive or near-competitive with fossil fuels,
the Paris agreement would be unnecessary. The entire world would be dumping fossil fuels for the cheaper, better option.

It’s not very complicated: We must end wasteful subsidies for both fossil fuels and inefficient solar and wind. And we should focus on investment in innovation to improve green energy.

Richard A. Fletcher • 11 months ago

When the next Ice Age strikes, we will all be needing as much energy as we can find, else many of us will likely freeze to death, a more dangerous situation than Global Warming (AGW) .It's easy to adapt to increased heat, simply dressing properly and adding insulation to homes and businesses.

waxliberty • 11 months ago

Still predicting that ice age, Richard? :) I don't suppose you're taking any bets about it.

Why do you think global energy content keep going up so dramatically despite the super low solar cycles we've been having? Do you ever stop to wonder about the physical world?

Richard A. Fletcher • 2 months ago

It’s the smallest cycle in 100 years,” NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center research scientist David Hathaway said during a recent press teleconference conducted by the Marshall Space Flight Center. Recently, the National Solar Observatory's Matt Penn and colleagues analyzed more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona. They noticed a long-term trend of sunspot weakening, and if the trend continues, the sun's magnetic field won't be strong enough to produce sunspots during Solar Cycle 25, Penn and colleagues predict. Astronomy Now reported in July 2015 that Professor V. Zharkova (Northumbria University) presented a paper with conclusions that the world
would enter a Little Ice Age in 2030-2040

Here's another video for you to watch, this one, http://bit.ly/2h3Gh4j, by David Dilley, former NOAA Meteorologist and current CEO and senior research scientist - Global Weather Oscillations, Inc., will answer all of your questions and disbeliefs regarding Global Cooling
Cooling, I believe

waxliberty • 2 months ago

Hehe. Zharkova again. And quite a gish gallop of nuttery in the video.

So... where's the cooling? Always just around the corner?

Instead of repeating this sort of nonsense, can you answer questions? We've already seen steep solar lows over the past decade, this would be just a notch cooler. Why has the world warmed in the past decade, shattering temp records in 2016-17?

Thinking about the physical world for a moment, is it really the case that the sun can be the only factor? When determining if a room is warm enough in winter, is it only the state of the central heating unit that matters, or does the existence of insulation (or walls) in a room make a difference as well?

On a % basis, in terms of actual energy (joules), which has changed more – earth's insulation (greenhouse effect) or the amount of solar energy arriving (per claims like Zharkova)? Whoops, that one would force you to deal with physics, wouldn't it, and then all of this cooling hopefulness vanishes into wisps, unfortunately.

Richard, are you willing to bet on the coming global cooling or no?

Richard A. Fletcher • 2 months ago

"Instead of repeating this sort of nonsense, can you answer questions?
We've already seen steep solar lows over the past decade, this would be
just a notch cooler. Why has the world warmed in the past decade,
shattering temp records in 2016-17?"
I'm not aware that we've see steep solos over the past decade, just the opposite, https://go.nasa.gov/2vYpCT4, and also so-called warming, http://bit.ly/2hkpOZ7, and as far as your contention that the Earth has contained warming over the past decade, not just normal natural variation still coming out of the LIA, in my opinion, http://bit.ly/2iJtlwC, http://bit.ly/2gcnBOO, http://bit.ly/2iihxEE, http://bit.ly/2hPf3hN, and http://bit.ly/2hRuDET. You know TreeParty you seem to be a perfect John Cook minion who are known as Skeptical Scientists (SkS) who tried their best to follow Cook's orders to forward the 97% falsehood. Even more importantly, I asked you for data in my initial reply to you, and I haven't seen any yet,, How come get you find any the data supporting your view? Also, can you pinpoint a single so-called climatologist?

waxliberty • 2 months ago

Just not lucid enough to be worth the bother.

Richard A. Fletcher • 2 months ago

Hopefully, this will be worth your bother, and that is can you answer these 3 questions: (1) can you pinpoint a single instance in the history of the Earth, where CO2 led temperature upwards? (2) can you name a single climatologist who supports your views? (3) finally, what first-world luxuries and essentials are you willing to forgo, for example, get rid of your computer and Internet access, to prevent the so-called CAGW? Maybe by the time I get back from vacation in a week and a half or so, you will have an answer for me on those 3 questions.

waxliberty • 2 months ago

(1) "CO2 led temperature upwards"

Well, the current situation is the best documented simply because we have been directly monitoring the cause and effect.

e.g. "the top panel of Figure 3 compares global mean, annual-mean, clear-sky spectra of Earth observed by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) satellite instrument with spectra calculated after the radiative transfer equations were applied to output of a climate model driven by observed surface temperatures. The agreement between the two is nearly perfect, which confirms the validity of the radiative transfer theory, the spectroscopy used to implement it, and the physics of the climate model."
https://geosci.uchicago.edu...

Also, CO2 was a major factor in the most recent glacial (ice age) advances (where we have more recent ice core records), e.g. major role in melting the last ice age glaciers.

Case closed, says study: C02 melted Ice Age glaciers
https://www.yahoo.com/news/...

But what I think you mean to ask is an example of a case where CO2 was the clear initiating factor for warming, not just cases where it "led temperature upward" i.e. caused warming. The PETM and its associated mass extinctions were result of massive carbon excursion, though not sure how granular/clear the data is on that and expect the specifics are still debated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

(2) I am not reflecting any views here that are out of step with mainstream climate science, as expressed in IPCC, national academy statements etc. "essentially all" would agree with these comments.

(3) "what first-world luxuries and essentials are you willing to forgo"

That you are not willing to forgo? None – I do not believe your contrarian rejection of climate science and supporting observational evidence should be rewarded.

My most general answer would be that if we implemented reasonable emission-capping regulation and/or fixed carbon pricing to better get the market to optimize for the full cost of fossil fuel burning, I am prepared to live with whatever consequences resulted in terms of my purchasing power or standard of living. Studies have tended to find that this cost appears affordable on a global basis, but it is getting more expensive over time.

Delaying appropriate action is a false economy (i.e. you and I do not come out ahead by dong nothing, we all likely come out behind in the long run), and a consequence of the collective reality denial that you are demonstrating for everyone.

Richard A. Fletcher • 2 months ago

I'm not aware that we've see steep solar lows over the past decade, just the opposite, https://go.nasa.gov/2vYpCT4, and also so-called warming, http://bit.ly/2hkpOZ7, and as far as your contention that the Earth has contained warming over the past decade, not just normal natural variation still coming out of the LIA, in my opinion, http://bit.ly/2iJtlwC, http://bit.ly/2gcnBOO, http://bit.ly/2iihxEE, http://bit.ly/2hPf3hN, and http://bit.ly/2hRuDET. Can you defend your position by answering the following questions; (1) Can you point out one single incident where CO2 led temperature upwards? (2) Do you have a single named climatologist, meteorologist, or oceanographer who support your view? (3) For the sake of discussion, what first-world conveniences are you willing to forgo simply to prevent the so-called CAGW?

Richard A. Fletcher • 2 months ago

To get to the Nut of your question, no I don't bet on even card games, certainly not weather and climate.. As far as the SO-CALLED warming that is going on, a good bit of that is fraudulent data fiddling as David Dilley so softly terms it, in fact it's really FRAUD. As far as your insulation to the earth goes, again, do you realize that the CO2 affect on temperature is logarithmic, meaning that you have to double it many many times over to get any kind of temperature increase. How else can YOU explain the fact that CO2 levels were 7 or 8 times as high in times than today in times gone by, particularly when the earth was in a glaciation period. Why worry about physics, when logic is all that's required

waxliberty • 2 months ago

"a good bit of that is fraudulent data fiddling as David Dilley so softly terms it, in fact it's really FRAUD"

Unsupported internet conspiracy theory.

If scientists are "fiddling with the data", why are they fiddling with it to make it look like there is *less* global warming over the last century, according to your conspiracy theory?

http://variable-variability...

"do you realize that the CO2 affect on temperature is logarithmic"

This is true. Quick exercise for you: why do you think climate sensitivity is given as "degrees warming per doubling of CO2" in mainstream climate science. And does this make you think the logarithmic nature is hidden, or not used in projecting future temp?

"meaning that you have to double it many many times over to get any kind of temperature increase"

This part is incorrect though, we have only increased CO2 40% and already we have warmed the planet fast and rapidly enough to start wiping out our coral reefs. You do not need to argue about "logarithmic" anything, you just need to observe what is happening in the actual world.

http://www.independent.co.u...

"How else can YOU explain the fact that CO2 levels were 7 or 8 times as high in times than today in times gone by, particularly when the earth was in a glaciation period"

Generally when CO2 was that high, the planet was warmer than today. However, hundreds of millions of years ago, solar intensity was quite a bit lower.

"Why worry about physics, when logic is all that's required"

Logic involves the application of physics, on questions like this.

Though, your comments are not logical. For example, you seem to think your "7 or 8 times as high" comment somehow contradicts physics. It doesn't.

cunudiun • 2 months ago

"How else can YOU explain the fact that CO2 levels were 7 or 8 times ashigh in times than today in times gone by, particularly when the earth was in a glaciation period."
The sun was weaker.
https://www.nature.com/arti...

Richard A. Fletcher • 11 months ago

I see that ZME Science has been drinking the same Kool-Aid that the Obama administration has been serving. Never mind that real data shows that there is climate is been fairly consistent over the last 4000 years, http://bit.ly/28RCUdi .

TreeParty • 11 months ago

So the evidence from the data that YOU CITED is that the temperature of Greenland is the warmest now than it has been in at least 2000 years. That is obviously caused by the flaring of hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon in just over a century, causing GLOBAL (as opposed to local Greenland) temperatures to rise by 1 deg. C per century, a rate that is historically very rare. Other proxies for GLOBAL temperatures DO NOT show that the "Minoan Warm Period" was 1.5 deg. C. hotter than the present average temperature of the planet. So the current spike of >1 deg. C. GLOBALLY in a century is anomalous and dangerous.
Can you find and post a temperature record for the last 4000 years that is not confined to Greenland?

Richard A. Fletcher • 10 months ago

65 Million Years of Climate Change, http://bit.ly/2gqfwCz .And where did you come up with this idea that the temperature of Greenland is the warmest now than it has been in at least 2000 years is obviously caused by flaring of hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon in just over a century? Who said it's obvious? and what carbon are you referring to, fossil fuels, CO2, what?

TreeParty • 10 months ago

Let's take this answer in stages.
Stage One: The graph of "Central Greenland Temperature" that you yourself linked shows that the temperature of Greenland has not been as high as it is now for just about 2000 years. That "the temperature of Greenland is the warmest now than it has been in at least 2000 years" is shown by the data that YOU LINKED! And we agree on that conclusion, because it is clearly and demonstrably true.
Stage Two: The average global temperature of the ENTIRE PLANET has increased in the last century by over 1 Deg C. That would include Greenland, by definition; even though the general rise in the average temperature of the planet will not affect every locality by the same amount. Obviously.
Stage Three: The consensus of scientists that spend every day studying climate change is that it is principally human activity (combustion of fossil fuels; deforestation; feedback effects of methane release, albedo loss, etc.) that is causing this global warming. Other possible mechanisms, and groups of mechanisms, have been considered, evaluated, and rejected, as the CHIEF driver of the measurable global warming. The increase in atmospheric CO2, that went from 280 PPM for the entire duration of the graph you linked on Powerline, to >400 PPM and rising, at present, is what the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists believe is causing the current global warming.
Stage Four: It is the "flaring of hundreds of millions of year of stored carbon in just over a century" that has caused the atmospheric fraction of CO2 to rise from 280 PPM for the last 800,000 years, to the current value of >400 PPM in just over a century. I SAID IT'S OBVIOUS, and I have virtually the entire community of climate science to back me up on that.
To recapitulate: There is no other scientifically defensible explanation for the observable rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet but AGW.
Cheers..

Richard A. Fletcher • 2 months ago

TreeParty,

Here's my complete response to you, http://bit.ly/2uYDi2F

TreeParty • 2 months ago

WAY TOO LONG, did not read. I have a life, believe it or not...
"First, I agree I gave you the wrong link regarding Greenland’s temperature record, a mistake on my part, probably in my haste to get to school that day, I believe."
Carelessness duly noted.
And MULTIPLE variations of font, size, color, etc. duly noted. Your whole response reads like a bad ransom note!
1) It is NOT TRUE that the planetary temperature has not increased in 18, or 20, years. The average global temperature continues to increase by EVERY measurement, and every year for the last three years has been the hottest year ever measured.
2) It IS true that the OBSERVED global warming can only be explained by human activity, specifically massive emissions of CO2, that well-known greenhouse gas. Adding to the certainty is the rapid acidification of the world's oceans due to the surfeit of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3) Ivar Giaever?! Really?!
“I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned.” - Ivar Giaever
Wow - this is your "expert"?!
4) Global Warming Petition Project - Major fraud:
https://skepticalscience.co...
5) You got nothin'. The planet is clearly, demonstrably and incontrovertibly WARMING, and you cherry pick the least believable BS to try to deny the OBVIOUS FACTS. Shame on you.

Gabriel Vargas • 11 months ago

when you have signals that something is not right in the body, you go to the doctor, and he tell you, you have cancer then you go to second opinion and tell you that you have cancer, then 99 doctors tell you have a cancer, then the number 100 tell you, you are fine. which one you believe?

I don't want to change you mind,just I want to make my point

1.- 99 % of the world sciences that study everything relate with the planet are telling us, something is happen.
2.- you can start see some effects in Miami, California ..etc.
3.- all countries know that is happening and they are working to minimize the effects.
4.- the Army, Navy, etc are telling us, this is a national security issue.

which one you believe?

Richard A. Fletcher • 2 months ago

“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. “,
The 97 percent figure is highly misleading considering that only 32.6
percent of the scientists endorsed anthropogenic global warming, while two-thirds expressed no position."

http://nws.mx/2hhh2vf

TreeParty • 2 months ago

Cheryl Chumley?!?! Cheryl Chumley is a HACK for the Heartland Institute, that well-known, petroleum-industry funded "think"-tank that is at the forefront of climate science denial.
And her defense of the "Petition Project", a mere 31,000 mostly NON-climate scientists, is what you'd expect from a spokestooge for the petroleum industry. Could you be a tragically gullible, or otherwise sympathetic fellow traveler?

Richard A. Fletcher • 2 months ago

where did you get the name, Cheryl Chumley, tout of this article? I can't see it myself

TreeParty • 2 months ago

Cheryl Chumley wrote the article you just linked:
http://www.newsmax.com/News...
Wow. Blink your eyes three times if you are being held against your will....
Then read this:
http://www.snopes.com/30000...

Thank you.

Richard A. Fletcher • 2 months ago

Cheryl Chumley is online opinion writer for the Washington Times, with no connections to the Heartland Institute that I could find You may not like her opinions or articles but does mean they are wrong, http://bit.ly/2wtcCUX

TreeParty • 2 months ago