Thursday, February 29, 2024
Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XSG2Dw2mL8
It is absurd. The political left deliberately promotes falsehoods and then cry bloody murder when people object to their nonsense.
This is a straw man argument.
The IPCC has shown its bias by refusing to hire anyone who does not already believe in catastrophic man-made warming. This is not how you do science, by starting with the conclusion. Real science is done by looking at the data and seeing where that takes you.
The IPCC has tried to suppress papers by skeptics and even got a skeptic fired from a university.
One person who resigned from the IPCC said that it wasn't so much about protecting the Climate as it was about doing away with free-market capitalism. Other people have resigned from the IPCC in protest claiming that they were too biased.
Everywhere I look I see articles claiming that the only solution to Climate Change is socialism. At least for some, this is the real agenda.
It is questionable to claim that everything is rigidly peer-reviewed when the universities have been taken over by the extreme left.
Almost everyone believes that the average atmosphere temperature has increased, by a small amount, and that humans are the cause. There are some minor disagreements over the details, but there is widespread agreement on the basics. However, future predictions of gloom and doom are very debatable and scientifically disprovable. The CO2 level is already at 90% of its potential to block infrared radiation. Climate Alarmism depends upon as-of-yet unproven positive feedback mechanisms. If there were some evidence for this I would be on board, but there is a long list of past predictions that have not come true.
The solutions involve making energy expensive for everyone and denying energy to developing countries.
Wednesday, February 28, 2024
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
Saturday, February 24, 2024
New Evidence Suggests Long COVID Could Be a Brain Injury
'As part of the preprint study, participants took a cognition test with their scores age-matched to those who had not suffered a serious bout of COVID-19. Then a blood sample was taken to look for specific biomarkers, showing that elevated levels of certain biomarkers were consistent with a brain injury. Using brain scans, researchers also found that certain regions of the brain associated with attention were reduced in volume.
Patients who participated in the study were "less accurate and slower" in their cognition, and suffered from at least one mental health condition, such as depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder, according to researchers.
The brain deficits found in COVID-19 patients were equivalent to 20 years of brain aging and provided proof of what doctors have feared: that this virus can damage the brain and result in ongoing mental health issues.
"We found global deficits across cognition,"'
Patients who participated in the study were "less accurate and slower" in their cognition, and suffered from at least one mental health condition, such as depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder, according to researchers.
The brain deficits found in COVID-19 patients were equivalent to 20 years of brain aging and provided proof of what doctors have feared: that this virus can damage the brain and result in ongoing mental health issues.
"We found global deficits across cognition,"'
Friday, February 23, 2024
Wednesday, February 21, 2024
Tuesday, February 20, 2024
The Hockey Stick Trial: Science (and free speech) Dies in a DC Courtroom
In a 39-page report, climate scientist Judith Curry gave her opinion that it is "reasonable" to have referred to the hockey stick in 2012 as "fraudulent" in the sense that "aspects of it are deceptive and misleading."
However, Judge Alfred S. Irving excluded Curry's report, which cataloged the manipulations of data to get a hockey stick shape and quoted severe criticisms of the hockey stick made even by climate scientists supportive of the climate-change consensus (most of these made privately).'
...
However, Judge Alfred S. Irving excluded Curry's report, which cataloged the manipulations of data to get a hockey stick shape and quoted severe criticisms of the hockey stick made even by climate scientists supportive of the climate-change consensus (most of these made privately).'
...
The trial closed with Mann's counsel, John Williams, making a naked appeal to the jurors' political prejudices. Williams urged the jury to award punitive damages so that no one will dare engage in "climate denialism" – just as Donald Trump's "election denialism" needed to be suppressed. "In 41 years of trying cases to juries," John Hinderaker wrote on the Powerline blog, "I have never heard such an outrageously improper appeal."
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2024/02/19/the_hockey_stick_trial_science_dies_in_a_dc_courtroom_1012630.html
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2024/02/19/the_hockey_stick_trial_science_dies_in_a_dc_courtroom_1012630.html
Sunday, February 18, 2024
Friday, February 16, 2024
Thursday, February 15, 2024
Wednesday, February 14, 2024
COVID-19
I thought I would be immune because I am fully vaccinated, but the dominant JN-1 variant has a slightly different spike protein, sometimes bypassing vaccine immunity. The latest vaccine was supposed to offer some protection from this variant.
Yesterday, I had trouble getting Paxlovid because my pharmacy was sold out. I had to go to three different pharmacies to get it. I took my first dose last night and my second dose this morning. I have eight more doses to go.
Paxlovid is supposed to stop the virus from replicating, which would be very nice. Any virus will grow exponentially until your immune system kicks in and starts destroying the virus. The Paxlovid might help the immune system to win the war.
Yesterday, on my second day of COVID-19, I felt like I had a bad cold and could not get anything productive done. I went to sleep at 10:30 which is early for me. I woke at 5:00 AM feeling fully rested but wishing I had gotten more sleep. I got up for a couple of hours, but when I started to feel tired I went back to bed. I didn't think that I would be able to go back to sleep, but I got just enough of a nap to make me feel better.
I can tell that there is a battle going on in my body. Either the immune system will win, or the virus will. So far, I feel better today than yesterday, so maybe my immune system is working.
--
Best wishes,
John Coffey
http://www.entertainmentjourney.com
Tuesday, February 13, 2024
Monday, February 12, 2024
Senator Wants to Prosecute Climate Realists!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs_cAiqeqas
The chance of this happening in the United States is close to zero but not zero. Sometimes, mass hysteria takes over, and I could see this happening in other countries.
Fwd: Methane Causing the End of the Ice Age
---------- Forwarded message ---------
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 1:04 AM al wrote:
John,I think this video came after the one you sent. It talks extensively about a dramatic peak in methane in the atmosphere, which has much more to do with global warming than CO2. I found it interesting.
Al,
This video is three months old and I already saw it.
I think that his claims are speculative. We have been in the Pleistocene ice age for 2.6 million years. It was caused by the huge decline of CO2 over the last 40 million years. To say that the ice age would suddenly end because there is a spike in methane is speculative.
Although methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, it exists in the atmosphere at a much lower quantity, like 200 times less. We measure it in parts per billion.
There is some concern that natural bodies of water, like large lakes, that contain greenhouse gasses could release those gasses if disturbed.
Water vapor is the most influential greenhouse gas. Minor changes in CO2 level can change how much water vapor is in the atmosphere creating positive feedback.
There is disagreement on whether clouds produce positive or negative feedback, but I think that common sense would say that it is negative. If it is positive as the IPCC claims, then this would imply that there would be a runaway greenhouse effect. However, past spikes in warming did not see this. Actual climate is complicated involving many factors.
By definition, the amount of radiation hitting the earth and radiating from it is balanced. Greenhouse gases cause a change in the equilibrium producing a slightly higher temperature.
--
Sunday, February 11, 2024
How Weather Works: Part 1 and Part 2
Saturday, February 10, 2024
Friday, February 9, 2024
Michael Mann climate scientist wins defamation case
"After a day of deliberations, the jury ruled that Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann through some of their statements. The compensatory damages were just $1 for each writer. But the punitive damages were larger. The jury ordered Simberg to pay Mann $1000 in punitive damages; it ordered Steyn to pay $1 million in punitive damages.
Mann did not respond to requests for comment. But in a statement posted to the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, he said: "I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech."
Simberg's attorney sent an email that cast the decision as a victory for him. In an email, Steyn's manager Melissa Howes said, "We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue. And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages."
Mann's trial comes at a time of increasing attacks on climate scientists, says Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, who notes that her fund helps more scientists each year than the year before."
Mann did not respond to requests for comment. But in a statement posted to the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, he said: "I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech."
Simberg's attorney sent an email that cast the decision as a victory for him. In an email, Steyn's manager Melissa Howes said, "We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue. And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages."
Mann's trial comes at a time of increasing attacks on climate scientists, says Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, who notes that her fund helps more scientists each year than the year before."
Just for the record, Michael Mann's hockey stick graph showing a rise in atmospheric temperature in the last few decades has been widely criticized. The main complaint is that it leaves out the medieval warm period, making the current warming trend look unprecedented. Poeple have also complained about his methodology.
Michael Mann has made failed predictions. It seems somewhat justified to call him a fraud, and expressing this opinion should be protected free speech.
Thursday, February 8, 2024
Wednesday, February 7, 2024
Denying the Catastrophe: The Science of the Climate Skeptic's Position
"It is important to begin by emphasizing that few skeptics doubt or deny that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas or that it and other greenhouse gasses (water vapor being the most important) help to warm the surface of the Earth. Further, few skeptics deny that man is probably contributing to higher CO2 levels through his burning of fossil fuels, though remember we are talking about a maximum total change in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to man of about 0.01% over the last 100 years.
What skeptics deny is the catastrophe, the notion that man's incremental contributions to CO2 levels will create catastrophic warming and wildly adverse climate changes. To understand the skeptic's position requires understanding something about the alarmists' case that is seldom discussed in the press: the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming is actually comprised of two separate, linked theories, of which only the first is frequently discussed in the media.
The first theory is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (approximately what we might see under the more extreme emission assumptions for the next century) will lead to about a degree Celsius of warming. Though some quibble over the number – it might be a half degree, it might be a degree and a half – most skeptics, alarmists and even the UN's IPCC are roughly in agreement on this fact.
But one degree due to the all the CO2 emissions we might see over the next century is hardly a catastrophe. The catastrophe, then, comes from the second theory, that the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks (basically acceleration factors) that multiply the warming from CO2 many fold. Thus one degree of warming from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 might be multiplied to five or eight or even more degrees.
This second theory is the source of most of the predicted warming – not greenhouse gas theory per se but the notion that the Earth's climate (unlike nearly every other natural system) is dominated by positive feedbacks. This is the main proposition that skeptics doubt, and it is by far the weakest part of the alarmist case. One can argue whether the one degree of warming from CO2 is "settled science" (I think that is a crazy term to apply to any science this young), but the three, five, eight degrees from feedback are not at all settled. In fact, they are not even very well supported...
Despite these heroic efforts to try to find observational validation for their catastrophic warming forecasts, the evidence continues to accumulate that these forecasts are wildly overstated."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/10/15/denying-the-catstrophe-the-science-of-the-climate-skeptics-position/?sh=639399591c66
What skeptics deny is the catastrophe, the notion that man's incremental contributions to CO2 levels will create catastrophic warming and wildly adverse climate changes. To understand the skeptic's position requires understanding something about the alarmists' case that is seldom discussed in the press: the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming is actually comprised of two separate, linked theories, of which only the first is frequently discussed in the media.
The first theory is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (approximately what we might see under the more extreme emission assumptions for the next century) will lead to about a degree Celsius of warming. Though some quibble over the number – it might be a half degree, it might be a degree and a half – most skeptics, alarmists and even the UN's IPCC are roughly in agreement on this fact.
But one degree due to the all the CO2 emissions we might see over the next century is hardly a catastrophe. The catastrophe, then, comes from the second theory, that the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks (basically acceleration factors) that multiply the warming from CO2 many fold. Thus one degree of warming from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 might be multiplied to five or eight or even more degrees.
This second theory is the source of most of the predicted warming – not greenhouse gas theory per se but the notion that the Earth's climate (unlike nearly every other natural system) is dominated by positive feedbacks. This is the main proposition that skeptics doubt, and it is by far the weakest part of the alarmist case. One can argue whether the one degree of warming from CO2 is "settled science" (I think that is a crazy term to apply to any science this young), but the three, five, eight degrees from feedback are not at all settled. In fact, they are not even very well supported...
Despite these heroic efforts to try to find observational validation for their catastrophic warming forecasts, the evidence continues to accumulate that these forecasts are wildly overstated."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/10/15/denying-the-catstrophe-the-science-of-the-climate-skeptics-position/?sh=639399591c66
IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie
The referenced paper by Hulme and Mahony is "Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?" Hulme, also author of the recent book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, is a key proponent of what is called "post-normal science" (see here and here), a postmodern narrative that consists of a complete perversion of standard scientific practice that he supports in order to propagandize for his socialist agenda. As he explained in portions of his book and his article, "The appliance of science," in the Guardian (March 17, 2007):
"Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs...where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken."
"It has been labelled 'post-normal' science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus...on the process of science—who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy...The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity."
Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity
"Having participated in the national and international debate over climate change for more than 15 years, I eagerly bought and read this book in the hope that it would examine the ideas and motives of both sides in the global warming debate. But that is not what this book is about.
The author, Mike Hulme, is a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, in the UK. He helped write the influential reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many other government agencies that are commonly cited by alarmists in the debate. He has been one of the most prominent scientists declaring that "the debate is over" and that man-made global warming will be a catastrophe.
In this book, Hulme comes clean about the uncertain state of scientific knowledge about global warming, something alarmists almost never admit in public. For example, he writes, "the three questions examined above - What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change." (p. 75)
Later he admits, "Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about the future performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply when considering all the consequences that might follow from such changes in climate." (p. 83) On the subject of the IPCC's credibility, he admits it is "governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists." (p. 95)
All this is exactly what global warming "skeptics" have been saying for years. It is utterly damning to the alarmists' case to read these words in a book by one of their most prominent scientists.
How does Hulme justify hiding these truths from the general public? He calls climate change "a classic example of ... `post-normal science,'" and quoting Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz, defines this as "the application of science to public issues where `facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.'" Issues that are put into the category of "post-normal science" are no longer subject to the cardinal requirements of true science: skepticism, universalism, communalism, and disinterestedness."
In "post-normal science," consensus substitutes for true science.
The author, Mike Hulme, is a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, in the UK. He helped write the influential reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many other government agencies that are commonly cited by alarmists in the debate. He has been one of the most prominent scientists declaring that "the debate is over" and that man-made global warming will be a catastrophe.
In this book, Hulme comes clean about the uncertain state of scientific knowledge about global warming, something alarmists almost never admit in public. For example, he writes, "the three questions examined above - What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change." (p. 75)
Later he admits, "Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about the future performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply when considering all the consequences that might follow from such changes in climate." (p. 83) On the subject of the IPCC's credibility, he admits it is "governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists." (p. 95)
All this is exactly what global warming "skeptics" have been saying for years. It is utterly damning to the alarmists' case to read these words in a book by one of their most prominent scientists.
How does Hulme justify hiding these truths from the general public? He calls climate change "a classic example of ... `post-normal science,'" and quoting Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz, defines this as "the application of science to public issues where `facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.'" Issues that are put into the category of "post-normal science" are no longer subject to the cardinal requirements of true science: skepticism, universalism, communalism, and disinterestedness."
In "post-normal science," consensus substitutes for true science.
Saturday, February 3, 2024
Friday, February 2, 2024
How High The Water Will Be 🗽 w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QB6BWyu6bXc
Meanwhile, we will be out of most fossil fuels within 100 years. We only have 40 years of oil reserves. Depending upon who you ask, it can take between 20 and 1,000 years for the CO2 to leave the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of it is absorbed by the oceans in 20 to 200 years.* We are never going to get to the point where the polar ice caps melt.
This seems completely disingenuous. Multiple sources have said that it will take 5,000 years for the polar ice caps to melt. We are 5,000 to 10,000 years away from the next ice age.
It has taken 140 years for the average atmospheric temperature to rise by 1 degree Celsius. The current rate of warming is less than 0.2 degrees per decade. We would have to rise 5 degrees Celsius to melt the ice caps. Therefore, we have plenty of time to deal with this problem if it is even a problem. The rise of the seas will be very slow.
Climate Alarmism depends upon as-of-yet unproven positive feedback mechanisms, because the effect of increased CO2 is very weak, especially going forward. There are many feedbacks positive and negative. There is widespread disagreement over clouds, where the alarmists think that clouds have positive feedback and the skeptics think that they have negative feedback.
*
"The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years,"
"About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years."
Thursday, February 1, 2024
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)