The Environment Thread

[Wideleft]

On 2018-10-12 at 11:06 AM, pigseye said:

Well if past history is any indication, I don't think you have much to worry about, here are some of the past predictions:

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Al Gore

Ice free arctic by 2012, 2018 at the latest - James Hanson NASA

Ice free arctic by 2012 - Jay Zwally NASA

Ice free arctic by 2013 not 2050 - John Kerry

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Sierra Club Canada

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Peter Wadhams Cambridge U

Reality: today Arctic 3rd highest sea ice volume in 16 years

If you want to discuss timelines:

 

1957
Scientists working at Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) publish a paper on the dilution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. The paper notes: “Although appreciable amounts of carbon dioxide have undoubtedly been added from soils by tilling of land, apparently a much greater amount has resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels”–indicating company scientists understood the link between fossil fuel use and rising CO2. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)

1968 (Global CO2 level: 323 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $1.2 billion)
In a report produced for the American Petroleum Institute, scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins note that, among the possible sources of rising CO2  in the atmosphere, “none seems to fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory.” The paper warns that significant rises in CO2 could melt icecaps, increase sea levels, change fish distributions and increase plant photosynthesis. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)

1970s
1978 (Global CO2 level: 335 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $2.4 billion)
James Black, working under Exxon’s Products Research Division, writes an internal briefing paper called “The Greenhouse Effect” following from a 1977 presentation to Exxon’s management committee. The paper warns that human-caused emissions could raise global temperatures and result in serious consequences. “Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical,” Black writes in his summary of the presentation. (Source:InsideClimate News)

1979
At the urging of an Exxon scientist, Henry Shaw, Exxon begins analyzing the absorption rate of carbon dioxide in the oceans, considered one of the key questions of climate science at the time. “Exxon must develop a credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation,”Shaw wrote in a letter to Exxon research executives. (Source: InsideClimate News)

1979-1983
Major fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil (two companies that became Chevron) meet regularly as part of a task force to discuss the science and implications of climate change. The meetings are organized with the help of the American Petroleum Institute. A minutes document from one of the meetings suggests that oil companies knew that climate change was occurring, and that they would bear some responsibility for managing it. (Source: InsideClimate News)

1980s
1982  (Global CO2 level: 341 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $4.2 billion)
Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Programs manager M.B. Glaser sends Exxon management a primer on climate change. The primer is “restricted to Exxon personnel and not distributed externally.” It describes “potentially catastrophic events” if fossil fuel use is not reduced. (Source: InsideClimate News)

1982
Roger Cohen, director of the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory at Exxon, writes a memo summarizing Exxon’s climate modeling research. The memo states: “The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [equal to 5.4 ± 1.7°F]…There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.” Cohen would later become a lead climate science denier at an Exxon-funded front group.

1983  (Global CO2 level: 343 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $5 billion)
Exxon cuts funding for climate research from $900,000 per year to $150,000. Exxon’s total research budget at the time was more than $600 million.

1984
An Exxon report on the Natuna gas field in Indonesia warns that the project would be “the world’s largest point source emitter of CO2 and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem.”

1988
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is formed.

1989
Shell announces that it will redesign one of its natural gas platforms, raising it a meter or two to account for sea level rises resulting from climate change.

1989  (Global CO2 level: 353 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $3.5 billion)
Exxon and other fossil fuel companies create the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). The GCC is created to oppose mandatory reductions in carbon emissions by obscuring the scientific understanding of fossil fuels’ impact on the climate. The GCC created a scientific “backgrounder” for lawmakers and journalists that claimed “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood.”

1990
Dr. Brian Flannery, “representing the International Petroleum Industries’ Environmental Conservation Association, but on the payroll of Exxon,” argues strongly against wording in the IPCC’s first report, which states that global carbon emissions must be reduced 60 to 80 percent. Flannery argues that too much “scientific uncertainty” exists to recommend such reductions. IPCC scientists agree that enough certainty exists to justify the reductions, and the report moves forward. (The Carbon War by Jeremy Leggett, cited in 2002 Greenpeace report, “Denial and Deception”).

1992  (Global CO2 level: 356 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $4.8 billion)
By 1992 Exxon has become a member of American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which actively undermines action on climate change at the federal and state levels. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists)

1993
Lee Raymond becomes CEO of Exxon.

1995 (Global CO2 level: 361 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $6.5 billion)
The Global Climate Coalition distributes an internal memo, organized by Mobil chemical engineer and climate expert Leonard Bernstein, warning that the “greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” Members of the coalition included BP, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Shell. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists)

1996
In a speech to the Economic Club of Detroit, Lee Raymond denies the scientific consensus on climate change. Raymond claims that “Currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate.”

1996
Mobil engineers, as a part of a project jointly owned by Mobil, Shell and a subsidiary of Exxon, note that “An estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed” in their planning for exploration and production facilities along the coast of Nova Scotia.

October 1997 (Global CO2 level: 364 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $8.5 billion)
Exxon CEO Lee Raymond tells the 15th World Petroleum Congress in Beijing that the world’s climate isn’t changing, and that even if it was, fossil fuels would play no part.

April 1998
The New York Times, with documents leaked to the National Environmental Trust, reveals that the American Petroleum Institute is organizing a $5-million plan to challenge the science of climate change. Representatives of Exxon and Chevron are listed as participating in the plan. One line item of the plan is to “Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who are already vocal” (p. 6 of Greenpeace report appendix).

1998
ExxonMobil-funded think tank, the George C. Marshall Institute, co-publishes the “Oregon petition,” a petition challenging the consensus around climate change. The petition comes with a “research paper” made in the style of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confusing some legitimate scientists into signing the petition. Other petition signatories, suspiciously, include fictional characters from the TV show M.A.S.H. and Spice Girl “Dr.” Geri Halliwell.

1998
In its proxy statement to shareholders, Exxon reports that shareholders have requested the creation of an outside directors committee to independently review and publish “a full report about the impact on climate change on our company’s present policies and practices…[including] anticipated liabilities our company may incur from its possible contribution to the problem…” Exxon’s board recommends against the proposal, citing, among other things, that the science around climate change remains uncertain.

1999
Exxon and Mobil merge.

[Wideleft]

2000 (Global CO2 level: 370 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $17.7 billion)
ExxonMobil publishes an ad, titled “Unsettled science,” highlighting a study showing a historical decrease in temperatures in the Sargasso Sea. CEO Lee Raymond presents the study at that year’s shareholder meeting as evidence that fossil fuels may not be causing global warming. The author of the study, Lloyd Keigwin, later complains that Exxon misused the data: “I believe ExxonMobil has been misleading in its use of the Sargasso Sea data. There’s really no way these results bear on the question of human-induced climate warming…I think the sad thing is that a company with the resources of ExxonMobil is exploiting the data for political purposes…”

January 2001
George W. Bush inaugurated as US president, with $100,000 in inaugural funding from ExxonMobil. Just days before Bush’s inauguration, Exxon’s publishes an advertisement titled “An energy policy for the new administration.” The ad argues that “the unrealistic and economically damaging Kyoto process needs to be rethought.”

February 2001
The Bush White House receives a letter from Exxon asking if the administration can oust climate scientist Robert Watson from his position as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Under Watson’s chairmanship, the IPCC had released a number of reports linking climate change to human activity.

March 2001
Bush administration announces withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.

May 2001
The UK Stop Esso campaign is launched. The campaign is aimed at Exxon’s subsidy Esso, and is a coalition effort that includes Greenpeace UK, People and Planet, and Friends of the Earth.

2002 (Global CO2 level: 373 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $11.5 billion)
The GCC announces it is disbanding, explaining that the group “has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming. The Bush administration will soon announce a climate policy that is expected to rely on the development of new technologies to reduce greenhouse emissions, a concept strongly supported by the GCC.”

May 2002
Greenpeace USA launches the Stop ExxonMobil campaign. Over the following months, activist actions against Exxon stations spread around the globe.

May 2003
The Greenpeace Global Warming Crimes Unit converges on ExxonMobil’s compound in Irving, Texas, to charge the oil giant with crimes against the climate.

January 2004 (Global CO2 level: 377 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $25.3 billion)
ExxonMobil puts out a new ad titled, “Directions for climate research.” The ad argues for “uncertainties that limit our current ability to know the extent to which humans are affecting climate and to predict future changes caused by both human and natural forces.” The same month, Exxon’s “Weather and climate” ad takes a similar tack, arguing that “scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change…”

June 2004
Greenpeace USA develops www.exxonsecrets.org, a website showing the links between Exxon money and some of the loudest climate deniers being quoted in the media. The website includes dossiers and fact sheets for each organization and person with a description, history, staff bios, quotes, deeds and hidden affiliations.

July 2005
Environmental and public interest groups launch the “Exxpose Exxon” campaign.

2006
Rex Tillerson becomes Chief Executive Officer of Exxon.

September 2006
The Royal Society, Britain’s preeminent scientific organization, writes a letter to Exxon, inquiring into the company’s promotion of uncertainty around climate change science. The letter comes after the Royal Society meets with Exxon to discuss its funding of climate-denying groups. Exxonpromised at a previous meeting with the Royal Society to stop the funding, but had not followed up after the meeting to explain how it would fulfill the pledge. Later that month, it is reported that Exxon has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has actively undermined action on climate change.

2008 (Global CO2 level: 386 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $45.2 billion)
Exxon’s 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report announces that the company will “discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.” In other words, it will stop funding climate-denying groups. Funding is cut to some climate-denying groups. Funding to others continues.

2008
Greenpeace USA and other citizen groups launch the “Strike Out Exxon” campaign, aimed at stopping the company’s advertisements at Nationals Stadium in Washington.

[Wideleft]

2010s
June 2012
In response to questions following a speech delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations,ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson suggests that while climate change is real, the solution would be to “adapt”:   “[A]s a species, that’s why we’re all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around — we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions.”

January 2013 (Global CO2 level: 396 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $32.6 billion)
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) pushes the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” in Oklahoma, Colorado and Arizona. The model bill mandates teaching the “weaknesses” of the “global warming… theory.” ALEC received consistent funding from Exxon since 1998, and continues to give to ALEC.

2014
Analysis of ExxonMobil Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments reports and ExxonMobil Foundation 990 tax forms reveals that Exxon continues to fund climate denier groups. Between 1998-2014, Exxon gave over $30 million to such groups (Source: Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists). Since 2007, ExxonMobil has also donated $1.87 million to Republicans in Congress who deny climate change.

September 2014
Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt announces that the company would not renew its membership to the American Legislative Exchange Council because ALEC is “literally lying” about the fact of climate change. As far as is known, Exxon remains a member of ALEC, serving on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council as of August 2015.

February 2015
Research by Greenpeace exposes Willie Soon as having failed to disclose that Exxon and other fossil fuel interests funded his research. Soon had served as one of the few climate deniers with a science background referenced by climate-denying politicians. The news further debunks Exxon’s claim that the company had stopped funding climate deniers in 2007, as Exxon provided more than $300,000 in funding to Soon between 2005 and 2010.

September 16, 2015 (Global CO2 level: 401 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $16.2 billion)
InsideClimate News publishes the first exposé on Exxon’s knowledge of climate change risks and how it responded. The article describes how management at Exxon learned about the potential risk of climate change as early as 1977 and invested in climate change research.

October 9, 2015
The Los Angeles Times and Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism publish a story about Exxon’s knowledge of climate threats to the Arctic, including models to anticipate impacts on Arctic operations that Exxon executives such as Lee Raymond would publicly dismiss.

October 14, 2015
U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier request that the U.S. Department of Justice launch an investigation into whether Exxon violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as laws on consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, and shareholder protection.

November 4, 2015
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman opens an investigation into Exxon over whether the company has lied about what it knew about climate change. The AG issues a subpoena to Exxon demanding in-house documents.

November 20, 2015
Exxon Vice President for Public and Government Affairs Kenneth P. Cohen sends a letter to Columbia University, accusing members of the Graduate School of Journalism  of violating the school’s ethics policies  regarding the recent articles regarding Exxon’s  climate change-related research going back to  the 1970s. The Dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, Steve Coll,  issues a response defending the articles.

November 23 and 30, 2015
A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that organizations that received funding from corporations like Exxon were more likely to argue against climate change science than organizations that did not receive such funding. Another study in Nature Climate Change finds that climate-denying organizations funded by Exxon and the Koch brothers are the most successful at inserting climate denialism into media stories.

January 2016
The U.S. Department of Justice refers the case of Exxon’s advocacy around climate change to the FBI.

January 20, 2016
The Los Angeles Times reports that California’s Attorney General is investigating Exxon over whether the company committed securities fraud or violated environmental laws by lying about what it knew about climate change.

March 29, 2016
A coalition of 17 Attorneys General and AG officials announces their support for President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. As part of the event, the AGs of Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands announce that they are investigating Exxon’s actions regarding climate change. Top officials from Vermont, Maryland, Virginia and Connecticut say fossil fuel companies would be held accountable for illegal activities around climate change, although they do not announce investigations.

May 18, 2016
13 Representatives sitting on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee send letters to 17 state Attorneys General and 8 non-governmental organizations, including Greenpeace. The letters accuse the agencies and organizations of tampering with companies’, organizations’ and individuals’ rights to free speech. Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard responds that “America’s least-respected politicians have now courageously stepped up to defend one of America’s most-hated corporations from scrutiny.” Data from Oil Change International shows that the 13 Representatives who sent the letter have received $2,848,418 in campaign contributions from coal, oil and gas companies since 1999.

May 25, 2016
Exxon holds its annual shareholders meeting in Dallas. The board confronts 14 proposed resolutions from shareholders, 10 of which are climate-related. All climate change resolutions are voted down. However, a resolution requiring Exxon to report on the impacts to its business from climate policy receives a substantial 38% vote of support, and a separate resolution passes allowing shareholders to vote in a portion of Exxon’s board of directors. This presents the possibility of getting a climate expert on Exxon’s board.

June 1
Greenpeace USA, other NGOs and the Maryland Attorney General reject the authority of Congressional representatives’ inquiry. Greenpeace notes the “‘irony’ that [the] committee, in the name of protecting ExxonMobil’s free speech, would ‘examine’ the free speech of environmental groups.”

June 9
Nineteen members of California’s Congressional delegation send a letter of support to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, encouraging her investigation into Exxon despite pressure from the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee to stop.

June 29
The Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands agrees to withdraw his subpoena of Exxon, after Exxon sues the U.S. territory for what the company claims are violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights. The agreement does not prevent the U.S. Virgin Islands from subpoenaing Exxon in the future. Exxon had also sued the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office based on similar arguments, but Massachusetts continues to fight the lawsuit.

July 6
Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), implies he will subpoena the 17 Attorneys General and 8 NGOs if they do not reply to the Committee’s earlier request for their communication records. Greenpeace and 350.org respond by demanding that Congressman Smith and the involved Committee members reveal their connections to the fossil fuel industry, which has given Smith and the other members $2,848,418 in campaign contributions since 1999.

July 11
19 Senate democrats use the chamber floor to highlight the fossil fuel industry’s–including ExxonMobil’s–“web of denial” around climate change. The same day Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) introduce a resolution arguing that fossil fuel companies created a “misinformation campaign to mislead the public and cast doubt in order to protect their financial interest.”

July 13
Congressman Smith subpoenas the offices of the New York and Massachusetts AGs and 8 NGOs, including Greenpeace, with a deadline to respond by July 27.

July 27
Attorneys General Schneiderman and Healey, as well as Greenpeace and other NGOs, refuse to respond to the subpoena. “The American people know this Congressional subpoena is Rep. Smith’s signature move to turn attention away from the real issue at stake, which is the investigations into Exxon’s climate denial,” says Greenpeace Executive director Annie Leonard.

August 20
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says in an interview with the New York Times that his office’s investigation into Exxon is focused less on what the company knew about climate change years ago, and more on whether the company in recent years failed to report the potential impact of climate change regulations on its future business. In other words, the AG’s office is conducting “a straightforward fraud investigation.”

September 20
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating whether Exxon failed to publicly report the potential impact of climate regulations on its future business–the type of investigation also being conducted by the New York Attorney General. The Wall Street Journal reports that the SEC is also investigating whether Exxon failed to “de-book” some of its oil and gas reserves in the face of low oil prices–in other words, that Exxon has been claiming valuable assets that it does not actually have, given the poor state of the oil and gas industry.

September 20

[Wideleft]

On 2018-10-10 at 2:32 PM, pigseye said:

It would make far more sense to give us incentives to reduce rather than taxing, imo.

It's going to cost me $20G to put solar panels on my roof through my local Hydro supplier and a carbon tax on top of that regardless if I have the panels or not? What a deal, sign me up.

How about just rewarding me instead to reduce my carbon footprint? Why not just give me a discount on my utility bills for using less and other green initiatives?  

That's what progressive governments have tried to do.  Small "c" conservative governments show a pattern of killing green subsidies.

[pigseye]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/19/uns-solution-to-climate-change-end-capitalism/

Well this plan sucks. 

[Wideleft]

The Daily Signal is an American political journalism news website founded in June 2014. The publication focuses on politics, policy, and culture and offers political commentary from a conservative perspective. It is published by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation.

 

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/climate-change-doubters-are-finalists-environmental-protection-agency-science-advisory

"Finalists for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Science Advisory Board include researchers who reject mainstream climate science and who have fought against environmental regulations for years.

Among them is an economist from the conservative Heritage Foundation whose work was cited by President Trump as a justification for withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement."

 

 

[Wideleft]

A fascinating read.  If you've never heard of the "Carbon Bubble", pay close attention to that section as well as the section under "The Carbon Lobby and the Trump Gang.  You'll gain a deeper understanding of the organizations/corporations and nations who want things to remain as they are.

https://thenearlynow.com/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd

If you have time, read the followup article as well.

https://thenearlynow.com/the-smokestacks-come-tumbling-down-c03ba1294522

 

 

 

[Mark F]

6 hours ago, Wideleft said:

You'll gain a deeper understanding of the organizations/corporations and nations who want things to remain as they are.

Appears that the various political and business leaders are unwilling to wade into this and do what's necessary. Instead of spending three trillion invading Iraq, they could have spent it on renewable energy. Probably have the thing solved by now.

Good luck holding back the tens of millions climate refugees on the move, when things implode.

Thanks for the articles.

 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Mark F

[pigseye]

Do you guys need to be hit over the head with a shovel? All the latest science is pointing against the hysteria, get with the times. 

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/1/3/htm

Quote

Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO₂ concentration increases. Changes in atmospheric CO₂ therefore affect global temperature weakly at most. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…”The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal.

https://tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2018/01/Bill-Gray-Climate-Change.pdf

Quote

Assuming that the imposed extra CO2 doubling IR blockage of 3.7 Wm-2 is taken up and balanced by the earth’s surface as the solar absorption is taken up and balanced, we should expect a direct warming of only ~ 0.5°C for a doubling of the CO2. This analysis shows that the influence of doubling atmospheric CO2 by itself (without invoking any assumed water vapor positive feedback) leads to only small amounts of global warming which are much less than predicted by GCMs.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324035341_An_updated_review_about_carbon_dioxide_and_climate_change

Quote

The results of this review point to the extreme value of  CO2 to all life forms, but no role of  CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.

http://article.esjournal.org/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20180703.13.pdf

In short, there is unlikely to be any significant net warming from the greenhouse effect on any planetary body in the parts of atmospheres which are >10kPa. A decline of 6% in lower tropospheric tropical cloud cover (15°N–15°S) occurred 1984 – 2000 according to the international satellite cloud climatology project’s data [29].  Scatter diagrams [55] of low cloud cover vs global surface air temperatures indicate that a 1% fall in low clouds equates to a 0.07°C rise in surface air temperatures – hence this change in cloudiness accounts for the entire observed rise in global temperatures during the 1975-2000 period, leaving no room for any effect from growing greenhouse gases. 

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2017-0107

Quote

The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist. … The CO2 emissions from 2000 onward represent about one-third of the total emissions since 1750, but the temperature has not increased, and it has paused at the present level. Because of these two causes, the critical studies show a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] of about 0.6°C instead of 1.9°C by the IPCC, a 200 per cent difference.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta

Quote

From this, it follows for the change of the global temperature as a result at doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules [is] ∆T = (0.4 ± 0.1) K, Because anthropogenic fluxes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted from combustion of fossil fuels is about 5% [Kaufman, 2007], the contribution of the human activity to ECS (the temperature change as a result of doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount) is ∆T = 0.02 K, i.e. injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect. 

http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-HAQK201701006.htm

Quote

Over the last five decades, CO2 has grown at an accelerating rate with no corresponding rise in temperature in the stations. We suggest that the Earth’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is too low to drive global temperature change. Our empirical perception of the global warming record is due to the urban heat island effect: temperature rises in areas with rising population density and rising industrial activity. Regions far from cities, such as the Mauna Loa highland, show no evident warming trend.  This test suggests that the inflated high correlation between CO2 and temperature(mean R~2=0.765-0.024=0.741) used in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) was very likely produced during data correction and processing. This untrue global monthly mean temperature has created a picture: human emission drives global warming.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1804/1804.03495.pdf

Quote

In conclusion we wish to say that we have performed a study of the infrared properties of carbon dioxide, methane, dinitrogen-oxide and water to estimate their contribution to the global warming in 1880 – 2015. Our results suggest that the IR properties of the CO2 are responsible for ~ 20% of the mean temperature increase of the surface and notably less for CH4 and N2O.

 

[Mark F]

Usual stuff....

one of those  citations about climate is from an an aeronautical engineer, one is from a website all information about which is written in Asian Script, and so on.

This tells you a lot.......about the person that posted it.

 

[pigseye]

21 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Usual stuff....

one of those  citations about climate is from an an aeronautical engineer, one is from a website all information about which is written in Asian Script, and so on.

This tells you a lot.......about the person that posted it.

 

That's the best you got?

What about the first study, peer reviewed, the second as well written by a retired NOAA staffer.

You can do better than that or are you just a hopeless science denier? Or do you just have a problem with engineers and Asians? 

Seems you're running out of excuses to keep defending a position that science can no longer support. 

[Mark F]

Another, related example of what happens when science is ignored, and crackpots are looked up to

Quote

 

"EACH year, as the summer winds down across Europe, so do measles cases—which tend to peak in late spring. August is, therefore, a good time to take stock of the measles season for the year. The tally for Europe, published on August 20th by the World Health Organisation, shows that cases in the first six months of 2018 exceeded the annual total for each of the past five years. About half of the 41,000 cases this year were in Ukraine. Infection rates also jumped in Serbia, Greece and Georgia. In recent years big outbreaks have erupted in Italy, Romania, France and Germany.

None of this is a surprise. In the past decade, measles-vaccination rates in some European countries have often fallen below those in parts of Africa. Italy, France and Serbia, for example, have lower child-vaccinations rates than Burundi"

 

anti vaccination , anti science, pseudo science, doing it's wonderful work.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

18 minutes ago, pigseye said:

That's the best you got?

What about the first study, peer reviewed, the second as well written by a retired NOAA staffer.

You can do better than that or are you just a hopeless science denier? Or do you just have a problem with engineers and Asians? 

Seems you're running out of excuses to keep defending a position that science can no longer support. 

[pigseye]

5 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Another, related example of what happens when science is ignored, and crackpots are looked up to

anti vaccination , anti science, pseudo science, doing it's wonderful work.

WTF is that?

You are the one ignoring the science and relying on theories that are over 30 years old, whose the crackpot? 

[pigseye]

2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Nice cherry pick, now look at the big picture

[Rich]

If you can’t post in this topic without adding an insult to someone else in your post, then it is best you just stop posting all together.  

Consider this a warning. 

[Wideleft]

16 hours ago, pigseye said:

That's the best you got?

What about the first study, peer reviewed, the second as well written by a retired NOAA staffer.

You can do better than that or are you just a hopeless science denier? Or do you just have a problem with engineers and Asians? 

Seems you're running out of excuses to keep defending a position that science can no longer support. 

Not peer reviewed.  From ESI's own website:  "ESI continues its long-standing interest in climate change, although its focus has changed considerably. True to its dedication to evidence-based public policy, ESI analyzed the same paleoclimate records that formed the evidentiary basis of Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore's award-winning documentary "Inconvenient Truth" and discovered that the relation between carbon dioxide and global warming is more nuanced than previously thought. The results of this analysis are currently being peer-reviewed for publication and will be posted on this site following publication. If confirmed, ESI's scientific findings will help point the way to a different, more adaptive, and more cost-efficient environmental policy response to climate change."

As for the second, you validate him by saying he's retired NOAA.  Hmm what's the first thing you read when you go on NOAA's climate change impacts website?  "Impacts from climate change are happening now."

https://www.noaa.gov/resource-collections/climate-change-impacts

You can't have it both ways. 

You also can't cherry-pick the findings of one retired NOAA staffer when over 6000 current NOAA scientists and engineers are not in agreement.  Yes, scientific dissent is important because it makes research better.  This is little more than sowing seeds of doubt for the sake of it.

Oh - and this is Rex Fleming (this "respected scientist" has 13 twitter followers):   

 

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Wideleft

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

14 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Not peer reviewed.  From ESI's own website:  "ESI continues its long-standing interest in climate change, although its focus has changed considerably. True to its dedication to evidence-based public policy, ESI analyzed the same paleoclimate records that formed the evidentiary basis of Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore's award-winning documentary "Inconvenient Truth" and discovered that the relation between carbon dioxide and global warming is more nuanced than previously thought. The results of this analysis are currently being peer-reviewed for publication and will be posted on this site following publication. If confirmed, ESI's scientific findings will help point the way to a different, more adaptive, and more cost-efficient environmental policy response to climate change."

As for the second, you validate him by saying he's retired NOAA.  Hmm what's the first thing you read when you go on NOAA's climate change impacts website?  "Impacts from climate change are happening now."

https://www.noaa.gov/resource-collections/climate-change-impacts

You can't have it both ways. 

You also can't cherry-pick the findings of one retired NOAA staffer when over 6000 current NOAA scientists and engineers are not in agreement.  Yes, scientific dissent is important because it makes research better.  This is little more than sowing seeds of doubt for the sake of it.

Oh - and this is Rex Fleming (this "respected scientist" has 13 twitter followers):   

 

 

[Mark F]

Above Pigseye posted Arctic sea ice is 3d highest volume in 16 years.

Fact check: wrong.

Quote

Arctic sea ice extent for September 2018 averaged 4.71 million square kilometers (1.82 million square miles), tying with 2008 for the sixth lowest September in the 1979 to 2018 satellite record

https://nsidc.org/   (Nasa again)

 

Rhine River flow is record low. No longer navigable for some vessels.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Mark F

[The Unknown Poster]

My feeling is summed up by a Surprising person, the PM:

 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[Wideleft]

8 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

My feeling is summed up by a Surprising person, the PM:

 

Because not only is it the right thing to do, being a leader in the transition away from carbon-based energy has economic benefits.  Properly done, Canada can lead in innovation and export the products (not just solar panels and windmills, but anything infrastructure-related) and attract investment in the companies producing these goods.  It is a fact that an electric car is now less expensive to own over a lifetime than one that burns gas.  The carbon bubble is coming and we need to be prepared.  We all saw what happened when Harper put all his economic eggs in the petroleum basket.

As for Kris Sims (of the Canadian Taxpayers Foundation):  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/canadian-taxpayer-federation-opinion-lamont-1.3802441

 

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Because not only is it the right thing to do, being a leader in the transition away from carbon-based energy has economic benefits.  Properly done, Canada can lead in innovation and export the products (not just solar panels and windmills, but anything infrastructure-related) and attract investment in the companies producing these goods.  It is a fact that an electric car is now less expensive to own over a lifetime than one that burns gas.  The carbon bubble is coming and we need to be prepared.  We all saw what happened when Harper put all his economic eggs in the petroleum basket.

As for Kris Sims (of the Canadian Taxpayers Foundation):  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/canadian-taxpayer-federation-opinion-lamont-1.3802441

 

You missed the part where he said it wont make a difference.  So he's rich and he's forcing yet another tax on Canadians to fix a problem he admits cant be fixed, at least not this way.  Totally irresponsible.  

If you want to pay higher taxes, be my guest.  Maybe they can make the carbon tax voluntary.  Since it's so right and so scientifically sound, Im sure an enormous amount of people will be happy to select "pay carbon tax" when making purchases.

[Wideleft]

20 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You missed the part where he said it wont make a difference.  So he's rich and he's forcing yet another tax on Canadians to fix a problem he admits cant be fixed, at least not this way.  Totally irresponsible.  

If you want to pay higher taxes, be my guest.  Maybe they can make the carbon tax voluntary.  Since it's so right and so scientifically sound, Im sure an enormous amount of people will be happy to select "pay carbon tax" when making purchases.

When I can choose not to subsidize oil companies (1.7 bilion annually), I will choose that option.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Wideleft

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Wideleft said:

When I can choose not to subsidize oil companies (1.7 bilion annually), I will chose that option.

So you're in favour of higher taxes?