Trump's Climate Cabinet

Surface Detail said:

Jack, that graph of dubious provenance (a right-wing political blog, by the looks of it) refers to the mid-troposphere. We don't live in the mid-troposphere, though, we live on the Earth's surface. And the average temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by about 0.8 C since 1981, which is actually slightly more than Hansen predicted.

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with the graph's provenance. And the point is model inaccuracy.

Steve Case said:

Problem? What problem? Maybe I don't read correctly, but it looks like you're on board with the left's claim that
greenhouse gas and a warmer world is a problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong. My view is that there isn't
a problem, CO2 and methane aren't problems. A warmer world isn't a problem ... I could go on ...

Click to expand...

I refer, of course, to the "problem" as they define it. Even accepting that definition and assuming their science is correct their policy preferences make no sense at all.

Surface Detail said:

The fact that the global temperature has risen even faster than Hansen predicted that it would back in 1981 should be some cause for concern:

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (See Fig. 6)

It means that he is probably also correct with his prediction that the Earth will become mostly uninhabitable by humans if we continue to burn all the available fossil fuel.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is nonsense. All of Hansen's predictions of 1981 were way too high:



The green plot is what he predicted for "business as usual" - no restrictions on emissions. In reality CO2 emissions have been much higher than what Hansen predicted for "business as usual", but the real temperature record is much cooler (pink and green circles). Even the most optimistic of his predictions, CO2 emissions held to year 2000 levels, is hotter than reality.

RabidAlpaca said:

Considering the right's plan (and Trump's) to address climate change is to "drill baby drill" and not address climate change, it's reasonable to get worked up about his cabinet picks if you have a respect for science and the truth. How can you have solutions when you won't even admit there's a problem? They're either climate deniers or just flat out corrupt.

Click to expand...

What is there to address about Climate Change?

Have any facts, that are actually alarming?

It appears to me that most intelligent people agree the added CO2 and warmth provides more good than harm.

The pundits only highlight and exaggerate the harm, while never speaking of the good.

LowDown said:

I refer, of course, to the "problem" as they define it.
Even accepting that definition and assuming their science
is correct their policy preferences make no sense at all.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm, how 'bout a hypothetical definition of a "problem"
and a discussion of policy preferences:

How do we get LowDown to stop beating his wife?

I'm sure you get my point, the entire issue is CO2 and its
associated warming, is it a problem? Does LowDown beat his
wife? When the answer is no, discussing solutions and policy
preferences are nothing more than mental masturbation.

The left is playing a colossal shell game with 100 peas and
a thousand shells. They know what they're doing when they
bring up things like geoengineering and global warming causes
increased prostitution. They want the basic CO2 science to
get as little scrutiny as possible.

Having said all that I know I fall into the discussing minutia
trap along with everyone else.

Surface Detail said:

The fact that the global temperature has risen even faster than Hansen predicted that it would back in 1981 should be some cause for concern:

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (See Fig. 6)

It means that he is probably also correct with his prediction that the Earth will become mostly uninhabitable by humans if we continue to burn all the available fossil fuel.

Click to expand...

I hadn't visited WoodForTrees in a while, I was going to pull up GISTEMP and overlay it on
your figure six. So I plotted GISTEMP since 1950 and WHAT?! Steve Goddard has been
screaming about this for at least two or three years now but I just didn't realize how
outrageous the adjustments have been:



Years ago GISTEMP, HADCRUT, UAH, and NOAA all fell more or less right on top one another.

Well anyway, I would have been third to comment on your figure six.

Steve Case said:

I hadn't visited WoodForTrees in a while, I was going to pull up GISTEMP and overlay it on
your figure six. So I plotted GISTEMP since 1950 and WHAT?! Steve Goddard has been
screaming about this for at least two or three years now but I just didn't realize how
outrageous the adjustments have been:

Years ago GISTEMP, HADCRUT, UAH, and NOAA all fell more or less right on top one another.

Well anyway, I would have been third to comment on your figure six.

Click to expand...

Calm down, Steve. GISTEMP and UAH use different baselines, which you have obviously failed to take into account.

GISTEMP uses Jan 1951 - Dec 1980, while UAH uses Jan 1981 - Dec 2010. This makes GISTEMP anomalies 0.43 C higher than UAH anomalies. It's all described under the heading WTI: The WoodForTrees Temperature Index on the Notes page.

Lord of Planar said:

What is there to address about Climate Change?

Have any facts, that are actually alarming?

It appears to me that most intelligent people agree the added CO2 and warmth provides more good than harm.

The pundits only highlight and exaggerate the harm, while never speaking of the good.

Click to expand...

And the dumbest, most unfounded statement of the year award goes to... LoP...

It's sad to see someone dismiss the entirety of the scientific community and make up their own world view as they go along, but then again, this is Trump's America.

RabidAlpaca said:

And the dumbest, most unfounded statement of the year award goes to... LoP...

It's sad to see someone dismiss the entirety of the scientific community and make up their own world view as they go along, but then again, this is Trump's America.

Click to expand...

I would not say unfounded,
Judith Curry's blog Climate Ect, had a good article on the subject.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/17/rethinking-the-social-cost-of-carbon/

In 2013, an economist from Pyle’s energy institute testified in a Senate hearing that under a proper calculation,
the social cost of carbon “would probably be close to zero, or possibly even negative.”

Click to expand...

There are few who could argue that our use of Fossil fuels has not vastly improved the overall human condition.
If we are truly going to measure the cost of something, both sides of the scale need to be considered.
As to the warming, we hear many catastrophic predictions, but the actual observations are that evenings in the cooler months are
not getting as cold. This is reflected in the movement of the plant hardiness zones expanding towards the poles.
At the same time vast swaths of the earth are greening up.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
I suspect expansion of the arable land should be counted as a positive.
Even parts of the Sahara are greening,
Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?
While there almost certainty are some negative aspects of warming from added CO2, it is not entirely
clear if the benefits do not outweigh the costs.
Fossil oil will limit itself soon enough, and for that reason we should be researching alternative fuels.

RabidAlpaca said:

And the dumbest, most unfounded statement of the year award goes to... LoP...

It's sad to see someone dismiss the entirety of the scientific community and make up their own world view as they go along, but then again, this is Trump's America.

Click to expand...

What facts rather than modeling with RCP 8.5 or model IS 92e, gives dire predictions?

Please...

Everyone of us skeptics want to know!

Surface Detail said:

Jack, that graph of dubious provenance (a right-wing political blog, by the looks of it) refers to the mid-troposphere. We don't live in the mid-troposphere, though, we live on the Earth's surface. And the average temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by about 0.8 C since 1981, which is actually slightly more than Hansen predicted.

Click to expand...

Dr Gareth Jones


Zeke Hausfather - Berkeley Earth Project