Based on recent comments he has made to my posts about floods, reader JC, who prefers "blog science" over actual science, is plainly still having difficulty grasping that the IPCC has always been saying that climate change means both increased droughts and floods due to a fired up water cycle.
How many times have I had to post on this topic, which ignorant people like Bolt and every single commenter at Catallaxy can never get into their thick heads? "But Flannery said on TV ...etc" is all they can crap on about - and I have covered his words, which were more the target of a shallow, wilful misreading than anything elese - years ago.
Anyway, just to show that talking today about increased floods and droughts in the same breath has always been predicted, here is an extract from the IPCC AR4 report (the volume Climate Change: The Physical Basis) from 2007:
Mean Precipitation
For a future warmer climate, the current generation of
models indicates that precipitation generally increases in the
areas of regional tropical precipitation maxima (such as the
monsoon regimes) and over the tropical Pacific in particular,
with general decreases in the subtropics, and increases at high
latitudes as a consequence of a general intensification of the
global hydrological cycle. Globally averaged mean water
vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.
Precipitation Extremes and Droughts
Intensity of precipitation events is projected to increase,
particularly in tropical and high latitude areas that experience
increases in mean precipitation. Even in areas where mean
precipitation decreases (most subtropical and mid-latitude
regions), precipitation intensity is projected to increase but
there would be longer periods between rainfall events. There
is a tendency for drying of the mid-continental areas during
summer, indicating a greater risk of droughts in those regions.
Precipitation extremes increase more than does the mean in
most tropical and mid- and high-latitude areas.
And:
Climate models predict that human influences will cause an increase in
many types of extreme events, including extreme rainfall. There
is already evidence that, in recent decades, extreme rainfall has
increased in some regions, leading to an increase in flooding.
And:
10.3.6.1 Precipitation Extremes
A long-standing result from global coupled models noted in
the TAR is a projected increase in the chance of summer drying
in the mid-latitudes in a future warmer climate with associated
increased risk of drought. This is shown in Figure 10.12, and
has been documented in the more recent generation of models
(Burke et al., 2006; Meehl et al., 2006b; Rowell and Jones,
2006). For example, Wang (2005) analyse 15 recent AOGCMs
and show that in a future warmer climate, the models simulate
summer dryness in most parts of the northern subtropics and
mid-latitudes, but with a large range in the amplitude of summer
dryness across models. Droughts associated with this summer
drying could result in regional vegetation die-offs (Breshears et
al., 2005) and contribute to an increase in the percentage of land
area experiencing drought at any one time, for example, extreme
drought increasing from 1% of present-day land area to 30% by
the end of the century in the A2 scenario (Burke et al., 2006).
Drier soil conditions can also contribute to more severe heat
waves as discussed in Section 10.3.6.2 (Brabson et al., 2005).
Associated with the risk of drying is a projected increase
in the chance of intense precipitation and flooding. Although
somewhat counter-intuitive, this is because precipitation is
projected to be concentrated into more intense events, with
longer periods of little precipitation in between. Therefore,
intense and heavy episodic rainfall events with high runoff
amounts are interspersed with longer relatively dry periods
with increased evapotranspiration, particularly in the subtropics
as discussed in Section 10.3.6.2 in relation to Figure 10.19 ...
However, increases in the frequency of dry days
do not necessarily mean a decrease in the frequency of extreme
high rainfall events depending on the threshold used to defi ne
such events (Barnett et al., 2006). Another aspect of these
changes has been related to the mean changes in precipitation,
with wet extremes becoming more severe in many areas where
mean precipitation increases, and dry extremes where the mean
precipitation decreases...
Climate models continue to confirm the earlier results that
in a future climate warmed by increasing greenhouse gases,
precipitation intensity (e.g., proportionately more precipitation
per precipitation event) is projected to increase over most
regions ... and the increase
in precipitation extremes is greater than changes in mean
precipitation.
68 comments:
Steve,
none of them have ever read primary sources.
They read conspiracy sites like Watts and nova who never understand what they are criticising anyway.
"the IPCC has always been saying that climate change means both increased droughts and floods due to a fired up water cycle."
Of course they are. Because the IPCC is a political body and not a body of scientists. The buck stops with the scoundrels who get to do the last draft of any given report. It doesn't matter how many scientists take the money if they don't get to make the last draft. So the IPCC will say that any outcome means global warming.
If there is a drought its global warming. If there are floods its global warming. If its hot its global warming. If its cold its global warming. If you see kids sitting in the trees smoking strange cigarettes and wearing tea cosies its global warming. If the waves go backwards at Cronulla its global warming. And if old Mabel runs down the road naked, crying about a long lost suitor, the IPCC will say nothing but nod wisely, because they know its global warming.
If every outcome has a cause of global warming its a non-falsifiable story which means its not scientific under some criterion. They have no test. Of course flooding and droughts are both consistent with poor farming practices, monoculture and a reduction in the available trees in agriculture. Putting in more swales, trees, ponds, dams in the landscape makes the countryside more resilient against both floods and droughts but here we have a clear chain of causality that all parties can understand and agree on. But Steve I kept asking you for a chain of causality, and you decide you want to not be under fair scrutiny, and you want to wipe every last comment to avoid that conceptual audit.
I’m trying to reform Steve to be less anti-social and lock-step "new world order." I respect the blog property rights of someone like Professor Quiggin because the Profesor means well and he’s worth listening too, even when we disagree. Plus I have a guilty conscience about mistreating our best Australian socialist economist in the past. But this fellow Steve is letting his bigotry and contempt run wild. He cannot be led in the right direction,with logic, evidence and reason, so he needs to be disciplined like a naughty child. Since his toeing the line on global oligarchical issues would lead to further enslavement and then a repeat of early twentieth century culling if these attitudes cannot somehow be resisted.
The loss of good soil due to monoculture in and of itself leads to more droughts and floods. Same with any loss of trees. 1% extra organic matter in the soil makes a big difference to how much moisture the soil will hold. Soil improvement is easily the most productive form of carbon internment.
Stepford
The point I’m making, you ignorant twat is that no single weather event could be ascribed gerbil warming. It’s impossible to do so.
And stop talking about models. They have been next to useless.
Again, if you’re concerned about gerbiling then support 4th gen nuclear power.
Shut up Paxton.
Just from memory I think that for every 1% extra organic matter, in the soil, means 20 000 gallons extra water-holding capacity per acre.
The point made by GMB is a good one and gives me pause even though I tentatively accept the scientific consensus. It seems to be these models are very poor in terms of falsifiability as virtually every anomalous event can be 'predicted' by them
We need to tally up the plusses and minuses of how it ought to affect heat accumulation (chiefly in the oceans) if we want to make an informed guess at things. So lets make a tally:
1. To the extent that CO2 release increases air pressure thats extra joules. Higher air pressure means greater retained thermal energy like in death valley.
CO2 effects are pre-empted by water vapour. So plusses and minuses have to be assessed where the air is dry. That means 2. in deserts or 3. where the air is very cold or in the morning after all the dew has already come out of the air 4. At high altitudes where airborne water and water vapour are already tapped out.
2. So in the desert CO2 will block some incoming during the day, but will add extra joules net due to the change in wave-length of outward radiation. Thats a net plus. But its hard for those joules to then imbed themselves in the ocean all that much.
3. Where the air is very cold is not usually close to the ocean. But where air is very cold and very dry CO2 should add a few joules. Hard to see how the joules could bury themselves in the ocean down the track, and since its so cold anyway its hard to see that this could make a difference long-term. But there is a few extra joules to be had there.
4. If extra CO2 mixes up above the cloud thats a net negative. Since thats capturing joules and keeping them in the stratosphere.
Now when you take all these plusses and minuses into account we must leave an open verdict. I say its a net cooler but only a tiny amount. I think the record bears this out but I cannot prove it and I'm not even sure about it because all our data is perverted. I AM SURE the effect either way is tiny. But I'm not the least bit certain its tiny negative or tiny positive. To give the devil his due, I suppose their model ought to work reasonably during the North Pole summers. That 3 months of North Pole summer is about the only place on earth where their model makes sense.
So since its tiny either way and we cannot assess apriori whether its net positive or net negative we rely on empirical data. Well the culprits have buggered the empirical data but when we get unbuggered data it always comes out that the 30's are the hottest decade. This contradicts all their models which always fail.
And the hotness of the decades are roughly a compromise between the 30 year cycles of the ocean conveyor and the strength of the solar cycles. Strength of the solar cycles, as is counted by the number of sun spots, and better the length of the solar cycle (long is cold, short is hot) is not as good as measuring solar wind.
But we don't have solar wind going a long way back and now the Rothschilds may have captured all our space.com data. Or Goddard may be acting as gate-keepers. So we have nothing to work with really except we know the bad guys cannot make their case without cheating.
What we can say for sure is that they don't have a convincing apriori case except perhaps in the Far North summer. And they don't have an empirical case. If you don't have an apriori case and you don't have an empirical case then you have no case.
But we ought to all be able to agree on good soil, good food and safe floating nuclear. Floating where we can jettison the core to cool down in deep water if we get attacked by some third party. Homer and Professor Quiggin are right that nuclear is expensive but its INHERENTLY cheap and we can make it cheap if we really think about cost containment in big long-term projects. Nuclear has been expensive because of bad project management. Thats where you bring in a lot of bankers and lawyers and you back the truck up and shower them with cash. We really need to find a way to do things more slowly and more cost-effectively.
"Intensity of precipitation events is projected to increase,
particularly in tropical and high latitude areas that experience
increases in mean precipitation."
What are the assumptions behind this? Well of course if the weather is warmer you get more evaporation. And if you get more water going up in the air you eventually will get more coming down again. But the quoted assumption involves circular reasoning. I say we are cooling but the data-riggers say we are warming. Now I don't KNOW. I've been out of the loop 11 years. But the main data is rigged. So if they haven't proven we are warming then they cannot guarantee more evaporation and therefore they cannot expect stronger rain on the basis of greater evaporation. (But soon we may get massive flooding on the basis of cosmic rays.)
"Intensity of precipitation events is projected to increase,
particularly in tropical and high latitude areas that experience
increases in mean precipitation."
No that stuff about the tropically increased rain is a misunderstanding as to how the tropics works under warming. As stated there has been no warming. But when there is warming you don't get heavier rains in the tropics. What you get instead is the expansion of the tropical zone, and the tropical zones chasing (as it were) the other zones north, south and up the mountains. So its really an whole lot of baloney going on here.
How about heavy rains due to warming more generally? Actually the warmer periods are periods of more clement weather generally speaking. And warmer means wetter and calmer if the time period is a lot longer than a decade. So if we took it to 30+ years warmer means wetter. But the hot 30's were dry and the cold 70's were wet. On the scale of just a few years it can be the opposite relationship.
The cause of this inverse relationship is the invasion of "cosmic rays" , which are rain-makers that come in after many years of a weak and feeble sun. What happened when the effects of the Maunder minimum were first felt was months of heavy rains in England and we think thanks to the cosmic rays. But there was only so much water vapour in the air, and once its rained out, being as its now cold there is not so much oceanic evaporation to start moderate rains again. Thats when the weather turns both cold and dry. Cold and dry with low CO2 is the four horseman. And we would normally be expecting this in the 2030's, though the hydro-carbon industry may step in to save us.
So the sequence in England went like this: Months of heavy rains washed out the crops. Then the next year, and for years after, there was very little rain (because it was cold) so there was no crops. Hence starvation everywhere. If we don't prepare now we can expect some sort of disaster of this kind circa the 2030's.
I see it as a disaster looming. So I'd want our government to get into a surplus budget then lend zero interest loans to farmers to make swales, ponds, dams and terraces to drought and flood-proof the land. The bigger land-owners qualifying for zero interest loot if they sell off a chunk of land. Since we don't want this assistance leading to land inflation. We want this assistance coupled with a reduction in their land values. Helping people with their cash flow and personal security gives us a good chance in justice to reduce their land values a little bit.
So I hope everyone sees what I am saying here.
There is climate catastrophe looming. The answer to it is not subsidies, libertarian happy-talk, damaging the hydro-carbon industry or going along with the global warming racket. The global warming racket says there is a climate catastrophe looming AND THEY ARE CORRECT. But they are a fraudulent, oligarchy-created bunch of lying low-lifes.
So instead of spending multiple billions of dollars on carbon phobia I am suggesting maybe 5000 dollars a day getting organised then a fairly modest series of zero interest loans to make our landscape far more resilient.
Is that too much to ask?
I don't think thats too much to ask.
One other thing, Stepford. I'm not a scientist and neither are you. In fact you're nowhere near understanding science. What you have is bias and plenty of it.
My view is essentially the same as Taleb's view. You don't fuck around with very complex systems on which future life is dependent and may be at risk.That's a trader's view.
What does all this mean? It doesn't mean placing propellers on sticks, making plastic panels while pretending these idiotic contraptions will provide enough energy for industrial civilization.
It means that one supports 4th generation nuclear energy.
There's nothing more to even discuss.
Paxton
For someone who's peddled Skanky ho was an Asian warlord's mistress, you have no business ever talking about conspiracy sites. You complete clown.
Yeah exactly. We must follow Taleb's general idea and we cannot follow a course of action that makes us fragile. Quite the contrary we must work towards being anti-fragile just like the Phoenician says. Being a country that thrives more when the rest of the world is facing disaster. Thats Talebs view of anti-fragility. Going beyond merely being resilient.
So you don't lean hard on hydro-carbons unless you already have excellent alternatives up and running. You cannot make everyone run at the door at once and expect good results. So that means that we cannot hope to get viable nuclear up for many decades. So we need to start now.
We need to have small business tooled up to the gills so that farmers can have wood-gas generators and a group of local farmers can press plant oils for diesel, and many country folk can have rocket mass heaters for heat. Energy sources are more complements than competitors and we need to have all we can get before we have these luxuries of pretending we believe science fraud.
Even to get the alternatives up and running we will need to burn extra coal since capital goods development is itself energy intensive. As is new infrastructure. The level train tracks and tunnels, the canals, these things that means less ongoing energy consumption themselves take a lot of energy to build.
Why throw everything we have away on what is obviously and provably a conspiracy? There is no logic in denying conspiracy. Its anti-scientific and deeply anti-social to do so. To deny conspiracy is evil. Its unacceptable. And I'm not going to let you do it.
Mike Shellenberger
Germany & California are held up as models for action on climate change, but had they invested $680 billion into new nuclear plants instead of renewables, they would already be generating 100% of their electricity from carbon-free energy sources.
Incredible. Never trust the leftwing to be numerate.
We have to start now. One of the first tasks is to sort out possible sites for nuclear power stations. So there is more sites that can be certified as potential nuclear power areas than we might ever want to build. One reason the costs may go sky high is that there will be holdouts for a higher price if the amount of potential sites are limited. If they are out to sea you want areas that can enable evasive action after a nuclear attack. Or bombing attack. You want to radioactive stuff to drop out and sink to where it will be seriously cooled and not keep going with a runaway reaction very long.
Another reason the costs blow out is you spend 20 years getting permission and then you have to explode into action out of a clear blue sky. You have to then proceed as if it were a race. We need to start NOW slowly (Caesar said "make haste slowly") We need to start with a low budget and get the process going even if we don't expect permission any time in the next 20 years.
To my way of thinking you want your nuclear power station to not only produce electricity. You want it to be able to take organic material of any kind, turn it into methane, then pump the methane ashore. You want it to desalinate water, not as an extra cost, but just in the course of doing business. And you may want it to have a spin-off making deuterium depleted water and heavy water. The first for public health and the second for commercial sale. You want it also as a fertilisation project for ocean habitat. The ocean has all the minerals and solar power for life. But it lacks habitat. Once you provide habitat life explodes into action.
"A long-standing result from global coupled models noted in
the TAR is a projected increase in the chance of summer drying
in the mid-latitudes in a future warmer climate with associated
increased risk of drought."
There is no causal chain that could lead to such bullshitartistry. Firstly CO2 doesn't warm. Secondly when it warms the tropical region expands bringing more rain and less drought north and south. Thirdly CO2 inspires extra soil life. So extra CO2 coupled with good policy leads to less drought. CO2 causes the leaf stigmata to close up and the plants are able to conserve water. CO2 causes the plants to grow faster. If the farmers take advantage of this for polyculture it enables them to bring more organic matter into the soil. Which means more water storage in the soil. More carbon internment in the soil and an ongoing benevolent cycle. Which means less drought. So its just the IPCC spinning a story.
Man has an essential role to play in the environment. Since carbon gets interred in sedimentary rock we are in danger of becoming a sterile planet with too little CO2 in the atmosphere. Here the hydro-carbon industry can enter the picture keeping CO2 up at a reasonable interim level. Plants that are not water-stressed only tail off in their improved growing at about 600 ppm. But plants that are water-stressed keep improving their growth until diminishing returns kicks in at around 1500ppm. So high CO2 levels are the ultimate way to green the deserts.
The IPCC were never scientists. They were always a conspiracy of liars and thats all they are ever going to be. I'm talking about the people who take control of the final draft.
The IPCC were never scientists. They were always a conspiracy of liars and thats all they are ever going to be
Anyone recall doc pach? The railway engineer turned climate scientist and serial harasser. He wrote a supposed novel referring to young, full ripened breasts. Lol
Good ol doc pach.
let's make it very simple for JC.
Global warming exacerbates the trend.Hence what occurs in intensity.
soony you are wrong climate models are as good as any if you use confidence intervals as you should.
Lets us see now.
Nukes in OZ would have a cost of around $120/MWh. That is ignoring how long you take to build it and where it would be built, Compare that to solar power which costs are now lower than $40/MWh and wind which is slightly higher and of course their costs are still falling dramatically.
It could well be solar is around $30/MWh by 2025.
Nuclear power electricity is costly or cheap depending on how the project management is handled. The basic idea of getting heat from uranium is very cheap. If you start now and very slowly you can contain the costs. If they are associated with debt the usurious costs will blow out since these are or should be decades long projects in order to keep costs low.
Global warming LITERALLY leads to more clement and less violent weather. Glacial period weather is more violent. CO2 does not warm the atmosphere. But what it does do is enrich the natural and agricultural worlds. So get your science right Homer. Every time you look like you are embracing reason and logic you start running in the other direction. Steve is always wrong so far. But you are more disorienting. Because we think you are a reasonable fellow then you start heading in the direction of Bedlam and goose-stepping again.
It would be good if we got our terminology right. You will only stooge yourself if you keep saying "global warming" when you mean "CO2-enhancement." Thats a form of self-hypnosis brought about by Orwellian terminology and it may explain why people are so chuckleheaded about what is a pretty straight forward reality. More CO2 is better at least up to 600 ppm. That ought to be obvious from the facts to hand.
Homer, does your renewball cost estimate exclude the heavy subsidies? :-) you complete idiot.
Hydro-carbons are renewables. Methane and oil are juvenile creations of the earth. Coal is more ancient. But what we talk about as renewables are usually not very good. Not much in the way of heat flux density. Wood can be good as an on-farm energy source. Plant oils too. But not as a commercial transported product. Uranium is the best energy product of that sort, because its so small and light for the number of joules you can get out of it.
But the real problem is the oligarchy getting the taxpayer to fund things that they know are not going to work and disrupting any viable energy or energy-saving.
subsidies come after all that which of course you would know if you had kept under to date on this area..
That is why all commercial operators are going for renewables. Hells bells even the government says they are the cheapest now and add in a battery and it is clearly superior in dispatchable power. coal and nukes for that matter can really only do base load power. Good if the government owns the assets but bad if the private sector does.
This does not even take into account how unreliable units in coal fired power stations are. They broke down once every three days last year which is a hall of an improvement form 10 years ago. Only problem these days is with very hot days they brake down even more as Melbourne found out this year
Three-blade wind generators are next-to-useless except on a small scale when you have one that rotates like a weather-cock on a steeple. It can follow the wind around. But the basic design is useless. When you try and make a better design someone infiltrates into the group and will bring it all back to the three-blade design that cocks everything up.
Dyson created a fan that was bladeless. Up until a week ago a misunderstood what was making it work. I thought it was be electrical difference. But Dyson himself says he's recruiting aerodynamic lift to increase the initial wind power 16 times. I cannot visualise how aerodynamic lift is working with his bladeless Dyson fan but my point here is that if you can recruit aerodynamic lift its a force multiplier. And this is what authentic genius (and one of the oligarchies targets for abuse) has done for his wind generator. He calls them WING generators to differentiate them from the three blade bullshitartistry.
Now these will be subject to lack of conventional funding. Because they will work really well as a niche generator. Not for base-load and industrial applications as he would claim. But they will be powerful for pumping water uphill, charging batteries and that sort of thing. The wind just blows past the three-blade system and does fuck all. They really are a travesty. I got sucked into thinking they were good at scale about ten years ago. But thats the opposite of the case since at scale you cannot get them to move with the wind. But the McCanney generator turns with the wind and it catches and recruits much more of the energy coming at it.
So if you want something thats actually going to work after a fashion, I think this is one direction to look in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ozm1CoXzCg
Geez, I'm now hosting a blog where people come to agree with Graeme Bird!
JASON: NO, HE DOES NOT HAVE A POINT. YOU DO NOT HAVE A POINT. YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS.
Let's take this slow, for the 100th freaking time:
FOR YEARS, the likes of Andrew Bolt, Catallaxy twits, and possibly you now it seems, have complained that if both droughts and floods are being blamed on climate change, that doesn't make any sense and it means its not falsifiable.
As I have been pointing out for years now, this is wrong because:
a. It was always predicted that a warmer atmosphere and heightened water cycle would mean BOTH: it's not a case of "oh they used to say X when there was a drought; now that there's a flood they are saying Y." THEY ALWAYS SAID IT WOULD MEAN BOTH X AND Y.
b. Rainfall intensification has already been detected and is one of the clearest signs of the effect (and a damaging one) of climate change.
c. In comparison, droughts are more complicated, because there are various ways of measuring and assessing them, so the attribution of increased droughts in parts of the world due to climate change is less clear - at the moment. Hey, no one said atmospheric physics was simple - what gave you that impression??
d. Modelling about changes in global rainfall patterns (as compared to increases in temperature) has always been acknowledged as being harder - so freaking what? That doesn't mean that effects of climate change is "non falsifiable" - it means that some changes are harder to predict than others on a regional level, given the planet is not a perfect snooker ball thing without geography and oceans.
e. Confidence in the predictions of global temperature increase has only increased in the last 10 years, and the deniers are (literally) dying off of old age, or retreating into lukewarmer-ism, using one limited way of trying to estimate climate sensitivity to the lower end of the scale. From the start, climate scientists pointed out the limitations of that method, and if anything, I think more recent work from full time climate science types is pushing estimates of sensitivity upwards again.
And JC, you're just an idiot for dissing models generally, as you do.
You're just a straw in the wind when it comes to climate change - you'll be convinced by the latest sceptical thing you've read and don't show any signs of reading what mainstream scientists are saying. You've always been like that: one minute saying "I met this guy and he seemed to know what he was talking about and he says its real and serious", and next month you're convinced by some man in his shed blogging that the temperature record is being fraudulently manipulated.
I'm not a scientist, and nor are you: the difference is I read enough to know what the mainstream scientists are saying about the crap you believe, and the end result is - I believe mainstream science, and you don't. TO BE CONTINUED
CONTINUED
f. One other point about blaming both hot and cold on climate change. Yes, I think it fair to say that variations to the jet stream under climate change was not a topic that was given much attention until the last decade or so (I see one paper referring to earlier papers on the topic going back to about 2005); and it is true that this aspect of warming changes to atmospheric circulation can cause the cold snaps that are still seen in the US and Europe under global warming. (It is also contributing to other extreme weather - including heat.)
But - to suggest that this is making the science non falsifiable is still crap. The cold snaps they have been suffering some winters are still in the context of the number of record high temperatures each year well outnumbering the number of record cold temperatures - as you would expect with AGW. No serious scientist thinks that the cold snaps in (say) the mid US in the last decade change anything in the big picture for that very reason.
And it's not un-scientific or dishonest in any way if they study the changes in jet stream circulation and conclude that, indeed, while it may sound contradictory, you can blame a cold snap on the extra warming in the atmosphere/ocean. It is just another case of the shallowness of understanding to do so, just like with "but how can they blame both more droughts and more floods on climate change".
If it's good science, it's good science - and the way in which the consensus is firming on how Arctic warming is interfering with the jet stream sounds entirely plausible.
So sorry if it was wasn't given enough attention as a future feature of climate change for your liking 20 years ago, Jason - but as I said, it's foolish to think that atmospheric science under climate change is simple and should have all been sorted out well in advance.
Oh do shut up Stepford FFS. Climate is the most complex system we have. Just to predict.. let me say this again.. just to predict the weather in the US 5 to 10 days out continuously takes 76 billion data calculations per year. To suggest someone like that bald pipsqueak .. Michael Mann.. could predict temps out to 2100 is truly laughable. For that matter, if there is man made warming and it stops at 2 degrees like some people suggest, the world would actually be better off. In other words not counting the benefits and focusing on the costs is stupid.
Having said all that, lets go with what I said earlier. Let's not mess around with a very complex system and simply introduce 4th gen nuclear power.
Peddling nonsense that you've picked up at religious sites makes you sound like an idiot. Climate change moves the jet stream around?... STFU. We don't have the knowledge to make those sorts of assessments. Don't piss me off with stupid shit.
Partner at a top NYC law firm, top litigator, top law school graduate. He says your assertion about higher temps is not just wrong but also a fraud.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-7-3-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-xxiii
Prove him wrong or just keep your religious experiences to yourself. Go!
Geez, I'm now hosting a blog where people come to agree with Graeme Bird!
Oh okay. If bird says it's Sunday and it is Sunday, we should disagree with him because.. well it's only Bird saying that. That's qualifies for one of the worst examples of faulty logical thinking I've ever seen and you're hosting Homer Paxton.
Other people can play your game too. See :-)
Its not science its science fraud. You don't understand it. I do. CO2 cannot alter the jet stream for fucksakes because CO2 doesn't alter electrical conditions.
The IPCC are frauds. Political hacks. They are not God and not being God they cannot alter the electrical conditions to alter the jet stream. If you disagree with me tell me the causal chain which sets up the jet stream in the first place in your fantasy? Before you can tell us what alters the jet stream you need to be able to tell us what causes the jet stream in the first place.
What we can change is our dysfunctional banking, money and taxation system. This system leads us to have bigger farms than we ought to have but with farms that are feeble in therms of capital goods. What we want instead is smaller farms, tooled up to the gills. So that the farmers can generate an immense amount of power and sell it to the townsfolk. As in the situation below. Many farmers can create a good artificial hydro spring in their place if they take their time with swales, ponds, dams, trees terraces and so forth. To put heaps of water in the land until eventually a spring bursts forth and they use if for hydro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiefORPamLU
Steve. Tell me why the jet stream blows. Go and find one of these frauds on real-climate and see if you can get a straight answer from him as to why the jet stream blows in the first place. If you cannot do that you cannot be claiming that CO2 changed the jet stream.
"JASON: NO, HE DOES NOT HAVE A POINT. YOU DO NOT HAVE A POINT. YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS."
No you are a dirty stinking liar. You are arguing against atmospheric physics because you are claiming that CO2 release is what alters the jet stream. Thats lying in the face of atmospheric physics reality. You know for a fact you are a liar because you won't say what causes the jet stream in the first place.
"Partner at a top NYC law firm, top litigator, top law school graduate. He says your assertion about higher temps is not just wrong but also a fraud."
Yeah, I get all the best science advice from litigation lawyers. [sarc, of course]
Actually, I think it's pretty well recognised that a lot of what might be called blog science on climate change denial comes from engineers and geologists: the former because the profession has traditionally attracted loner, arrogant types with limited people skills - making them way more certain of their opinions outside of their field of expertise than they should be; and as for geologists - I have never spent time around them to recognise their professional characteristics, but the time many spend in isolation in the field sends them pretty far into the eccentric/nutty side seems a good guess.
Civilisation would fall apart without engineers Steve. Whereas no one but their families would notice if most climate scientists vanished tomorrow
Here is a Princeton physicist William Happer. He goes against these lies as every scientist goes against these lies. The person who reckons its the scientific consensus is just Al Gore lying. They made him a billionaire for lying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8iEEO2UIbA
I was dissing them for their often arrogantly certain opinions outside their field of expertise, Jason. I thought that was clear...
Here is nobel prize-winner Ivar Giaever who got his physics nobel prize in 1973. So its not a fake prize like an IPCC nobel prize. Or a reward for economist Nordhaus. Its the real thing.
Ivar went into the problem after I left it and found exactly what I found. That it was a hoax. Its the same when any scientist goes into it. They all find it to be a hoax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
David Bellamy had seven different science degrees when I was a kid. He came out against the hoax and the usual suspects punished him. So we want to name names if you think you have a real scientist who believes these lies. See what his story is. He's a political appointee, or he's keeping his head low and trying to come up with a compromise position, or he's a Jew, or someone who has been paid off .......... and thats about it. But you need to name who you are talking about.
Here's John L Casey. He's a scientist that cannot be sacked by the global warming fraud. He came in it after I left. He looked at the evidence and there's barely daylight between his findings and mine.
Obviously he has the tools to go into far deeper than me. Plus he has another decade of updated data. But if you decide to look at the evidence, you find the same stuff as I did. It doesn't matter who you are. Its not guessing. Its just if you come to the decision to look at evidence or not look at evidence. Anyone who looks at the evidence finds exactly the same stuff I found. The data was being rigged. Our planet holds one-way cooling bias. Cooling has started, and so forth.
What you find is that the 2030's is going to be cold. I am saying cold and dry. Could be really cold and wet before that but the 2030's is something we can be confident about. And I don't see us climbing out of this nastiness until past mid-century. So we should be preparing for this. Permaculture is the answer no matter what the question is.
The media is part of the fraud. The media and the oligarchy are impossible to untangle. They highlight the heat waves and play down the cold snaps. I was up at the Southern Highlands not long ago and it had been snowing the week before. Was there much news about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ibx4n2-5qg
Look at the disaster we have going here. Solar cycle 23 was already weak. But the temperature stayed high. This is anomalous. But it does happen. However when I looked into the past two weak solar cycles in a row ALWAYS leads to cooling. 23 could have stayed hot for a number of reasons. One could be the big comet discharging the solar capacitance. But anyone it does happen that one solar cycle doesn't seem to have much of an impact.
But look at the projections. 24 is even weaker than 23. The second peak corresponds to a slight recovery for two years. And then we have another weak one coming. Sometime through 25 a lot of the accumulated water vapour should have been dumped out of the sky by persistent cosmic rays. And with three weak cycles in a row not only will we be freezing our butts off but there will be droughts, and the oceans ought to have lost most of the accumulation of the 20th century. Its a complete disaster. To damage the hydro-carbon industry, under those conditions, is not a mere wrong collegiate disagreement. The guys who control the frauds are openly working towards genocidal outcomes.
Once again .... we have NEVER had two in a row without cooling. Here we have 3-4 weak ones in a row projected. For a short time cold means cold and wet. But if its sustained it means cold and dry. We are in a lot of trouble. This is not small thing its an emergency.
http://zoulou-kilo-dx-group.e-monsite.com/medias/images/prediction-solar-cycle-25-hflink.png?fx=r_550_550
We now have the highest cosmic ray levels on record. That is what is leading to all this cloud cover and flooding. Its happening now. Just as projected a dozen years ago. This is the cold wet period. The next period will be the colder dry period. It will often be with cloud cover and no rain. Now its cloud cover and flooding but eventually it will be cloud cover and cold with bugger all rain. I cannot express just how badly the catastrophe will be. But its only now that the shoe is dropping after all this time.
If we had not had these CO2-warming liars thats a dozen extra years we would have had to prepare for this catastrophe.
Stepford
You remind me a lot of the principal in vice-principals. You’re sneaky and cannot be trusted, which is why you’re never able to have an upfront discussion.
Me being precise upsets up, JC?
I see that Graeme hoovers up climate change denial on the 'net with great enthusiasm. Another victim, like you, of the unintended side effect of the great change in communication that the 'net brought in - marginal crank ideas that used to have to circulate in eccentric leaflets or other publications that the author used to have to devote some time and money to creating now spew out at no cost and with an instant readership.
It's a tragedy really.
You’re anything but honest and precise, stepford. You’re always trying to get an upper hand in an argument by cheap shots - never substance.
Your last para about birdstein is indecipherable crap.
Man the hell up.
"You’re anything but honest and precise, stepford. You’re always trying to get an upper hand in an argument by cheap shots - never substance."
This from the man who in the same thread said - "To suggest someone like that bald pipsqueak .. Michael Mann.. could predict temps out to 2100 is truly laughable."
Yeah, you're always bringing in the real substantial points, JC.
Stepford
Baldie is a total fraud. He’s exhibit A why climate scientists are considered worse than criminals. He’s the worst.
Still have a problem with older white men offering opinions on climate science?
Man up, Fred.
Its because if you dig under the surface you find Jews behind all our problems. And they don't seem to have any other motive but racial solidarity much of the time. For this reason they can be dismissed on tribal grounds and so the fellow needs to go to another party for reliable information.
When they went for the leftists I didn't speak up because I wasn't a commie. And when they went for the Jews I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. But after that I didn't even need to speak up because it turned out all our problems were solved.
Are you watching a lot of television Steve? Why I ask is because having a television in the house is like inviting a Jew into your living room as a permanent fixture.
Michael Mann is a Jew. You cannot find a single study of his that is not fraudulent. About 20% Jew hey JC? Well you seem alright now. But there was about 8 years or so when you appeared a complete turncoat and I couldn't find rhyme nor reason for it. So I tended to blame the Jew genes. Not to bring any disrepute on your maternal grandmother who was probably very nice.
A psy-op has many layers to it or it cannot work. The global warming psy-op is really a roundabout way of maintaining supernormal profits on hydro-carbons and therefore giving value to the debt side of the hydro-carbon balance.
Now you'd think it was the other way around. I can almost see Jason Soon raising an eyebrow like Dr Spock right now. Because Jason would give me a hard time because my opposition to a carbon tax, in his view, was leaving the cash in the family Sauds pocket. Good point right? Very good point. I thought it was a good criticism by Jason at the time. But to my mind you cannot ride the lying tiger. You think you can live with a lie like that. You think you can ride the lying tiger. You grab the tigers ears and turn them one way and the other and maybe at some stage you are under the illusion of control.
As far as this psy-op is concerned, you would think that if we thought (or were deluded into thinking, or decided to go along to get along) that we had a hydro-carbon problem then the taxes levied to solve the problem would destroy the super-normal profits in hydrocarbons. Then you would think that destruction of margins would lead to an assault on the value of the debt side of the balance sheet of hydro-carbon assets.
You would think so wouldn't you. So it cannot possibly be the oligarchy driving this campaign because on the surface of things it goes right against their interests. YOU WOULD THINK SO WOULDN'T YOU. Thats the whole point damn it. They aren't going to spell it out for you. With these psy-ops they hide things in their opposites. They are more clever than that in the big things. In the small things its the same old same old. But for these big things they use a lot of camouflage.
They are never actually threatening the super-normal profits on hydrocarbons. We could do that really quickly if the Americans put a dollar a gallon on petrol and the Australians cranked up their coal royalties then we could reduce carbon emissions very quickly. If the crank-up in royalties was only for exported coal we'd have cheap energy locally long enough to put the nukes in place, with financial measures to fix our trade balance.
Its just this practical approach that the oligarchy must avoid even as they throw a few feints. The oligarchy takes a different approach. It THREATENS a carbon tax but it does not go after that increase in royalties or that European gas price for the Americans. What it does instead, and this is pretty clever, it gets taxpayers everywhere to subsidise niche energy that can never work. And it sends men in black out to fuck up energy sources that could make a difference. The oligarchy might put up with a few phoney scares like the carbon tax. But in the end they've sailed through with their ponzi debt completely secure.
The oligarchy knocked out the trompe and the dirigible in the 30's. They screwed up the "street-car" and the tram. In Auckland no one could ever figure out why they were getting rid of the trams. They bugger up the over-unity devices that could multiply electricity in every street. They bought up all the electrical car companies and retired them, and thereafter routinely bankrupted (ie funded and then defunded) electric car developers over the decades. Then they gave their man Musk an effective monopoly.
So this funding of things that won't work sucks all public and private money away from niche energy that would make a difference. Niche energy that cannot END the need for hydro-carbons but that can take the big profits out of them. Plus they use subsidies for alternative energy which can never work. Whereas they don't give up zero interest loans for energy savings, which could actually work. They set things up AGAINST the small farmer who could potentially generate 50 times his own needs in energy.
So the whole thing with the global warming fraud is like a fancy dive with a double reverse pike. They pretend that someone is putting their high margins at risk when really they are maintaining them.
In summary the global warming fraud is a giant smoke-screen to PREVENT alternative energy development while appearing to look like they are promoting alternative energy development. Thats the key to it.
wait what Graeme? the oligarchy undermined the dirigible and the tram?
So as a consequence, if you want to find out exciting stuff that can work, look to the internet for alternative energy that isn't being subsidised. Steve sometimes comes up with good energy developments for his blog, even as he goose-steps to the oligarchical script. There is great stuff out there. If we could get financial reform that leaves small business tooled up and agriculture in the hands of permaculture farms, these farms could be producing a great deal of surplus energy. If our city town layout was a lot different, with high-rise in the small towns and big factories either end of a town in woop woop, these permaculture farms could supply a lot of energy, and that would make the hydrocarbons more cheap. A thousand niche applications are complements and not competitors to coal and nuclear. But a thousand niche applications can bring our living costs down and our wages up for sure.
Yeah they got rid of a dirigibles through a combination of their media and a live radio terrorist attack on the Hindenburg. The guy who organised the terrorist attack on the Hindenburg was a professional baseball catcher. I won't let on his ethnicity in any way except to point out that he wasn't Maori or from the Ashanti tribes. The Americans used to have the best "public transport" in the world. .... it was really a public/private collaboration for the most part. You know like back in the time of "A Streetcar Named Desire" Coal and Oil were plentiful so the decision was made to put the supernormal profits on oil. That means the streetcar had to go. They were everywhere and then they were almost no-where. Holdouts were Auckland, San Francisco, and Melbourne.
Trompes were a way of having pneumatic tool power, refrigeration before refrigeration was invented, and compressed air vehicles, all very cheaply and naturally. Trompes could not be outcompeted if in place. If you get rid of them they cannot compete their way back....... You could bring them back through permaculture and zero interest loans but without that they cannot return by pure market mechanisms. Because they have that "network business" aspect to them. Once you get the qwerty keyboard in place the better keyboard cannot make an inroad. So there has to be real intention here. To restore things in their rightful place there needs to be some sort of catalytic action. Not subsidies of course because they never work.
The memory of Trompes was erased from the Western World by getting people to borrow books from the libraries never to be returned.
The campaign to put supernormal profits on oil seems to have kicked into high gear in the 30's. The Trompe was a masterpiece of benevolence and had it been combined with what we now know about hydrology control in agriculture it would have been truly awesome in the modern era. I must pass you onto the greatest Australian and teller of tall stories Bill Mollison. His ex-wife just sent me a nice message so he is always close in my thoughts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9NqqDL6bkk&t=20s
I meant to say his young WIDOW Lisa Mollison.
If we don't get 1000 niche applications up, and safe nuclear up, before the natural supernatural profits descend on coal through scarcity ... then on this front THEY'VE WON. There are n'ever do wells and layabouts all around the planet, just like me, who have to know the sense of urgency in all this. We can have such a good life and we can hollow out the asteroid belt and build 5 star hotels for the proletariat. Luxury sex adventure hotels for the elderly under the moons surface. But there are so many things we need to take back from collected.dynasties.inc.
The main things is we must have have a form of capital that has every sole trader neck high in producer goods, even as he is low in debt. So no compromise with poopy-pants attitudes towards the banking sector and the public sector can be entertained. We don't have the luxury of treating these producer goods destroying losers with kids gloves.
For decades at least up into the 80's we had all these massive hydro-electric schemes. This is infrastructure that can be destroyed by half a dozen missiles at most. Its great power but whole communities have to suffer as a result. The Salmon is not allowed to spawn. Maybe its the best power of all but its problematic when its big.
But what you will find if you look into it is local farmer hydro was subtly and not so subtly restricted. There is a reason why we have these biases in place in our culture. The long reach of Mordor affects everything. At the moment socially its hard to object to someone putting in hydro on their farm. But this gear ought to be everywhere. In a better world. Yet it may take 15 years in a hillside farm to fully prepare for this sort of thing.
Where there is a steep drop you want the trompe. And during the rest of the course of the river you want these hydro units. But this suggestion would be ludicrous to the struggling farmer. Because we need a low-cost way to overcome network effects and we need a system that explodes with producer goods more generally.
Just like the system Marx described and then critiqued. His prose is almost unique in his description of the power of capitalism in those time periods when its really kicking ass. The metal standard capitalist system exploded with producer goods but only for a sub-set of the ("business") bankers cycle.
So all we had to do THEN was update the system so that it exploded with producer goods in the entirety of the cycle to get the effects the Singapores Lee got with tight management and that the South Korean dictator got in the 70's. But in practice that means throttling the bankers and also producing zero interest loans out of surplus budgets for strategic defeat of network effects imposed upon us by troglodytes.
In any control system you cannot tolerate and you must not allow cost effective dirigibles. Jason you remember Anton Chigurgh right? You remember his emphasis on the one best tool right? In actuality he travels still with TWO (2) tools. The semi-automatic with the massive silencer. And that compressed air device that can be used to kill cattle or blow the locks from doors.
Well supposing you are listening to Hans Herman Hoppe. Intellectual of the highest order. Runms the best conferences on the planet. Proposing a system that cannot really work ..... or can it.
The anarcho-capitalists ought to understand that their one best tool is cost-effective dirigibles. Thats the only way a voluntary society could work really. It would be sub-optimal but it could work after a fashion.
So we see there was no way the oligarchy was going to tolerate wide-spread dirigibles. They truly robbed us. You could see the countryside better than in a motorbike. They had dancing and good meals. Cost-effective transport since its basically anti-gravity. The oligarchy looked at us having a fantastic time with these luxury dirigibles. They saw where the future lay with such opulence for the masses. And they pulled a tower-of-babel on us.
Soon I could not do it on my own. But suppose me and you wrote a paper about the application of zero interest loans for the purpose of social policy and overcoming network effects.... Then suppose the paper was successful. It lends itself to field trials. No problem at all. And a scholarly write-up and everything.
But you'd better watch out. Because the overcoming of network effects, meeting Henry George halfway, and the precedent that progress comes through plentiful loanable funds but minimising usury ...
...... These are things that the oligarchy cannot tolerate. So if you should get shot in the head by a police officer. If you hung yourself in your jail cell. Or if you were struck by a bolt of lightning ...... Well I am a superstitious man. And I'd be likely to see a causal chain whereas in reality there is nothing to see here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D_zITtVJGA
Lets not screw around here. We need massive ASIO reform before we can have a better world. And should Steve TRULY be waking up, after wetting the bed about CO2, there are many sane compromises that could be reached. If you really did want less CO2 globally there are policies that I would be more than happy to shoot for ............. But thats not where your head is at. I believe you have tribal undertakings.
Nurse!
I can see now that Cambria is a patriot. And that maybe he's matured a bit. And in the interim I've decided that Quiggin is a good fellow and I've thought about things and I should be more tolerant of dissenters.
SOON think about it? What was in it for Cambria to take the right side of the global warming fraud after all this time? There is no money in it for him. So in a formal sense, just as I now recognise Clive Hamilton's good works, Just as I recognise Quiggins exemplary place in our culture ... I understand now that its time for me to forgive Cambria.
No more talk of BootNiggers. Because the Italians have done more to develop art in the field of movie drama then any other people .... not perhaps thats not solid ..... but at least when I was growing up.
I'll expect a few ongoing back-fists from Cambria on account of me facing the menace that no-one else can talk about. But I do recognise over the years his solid patriotism vis a vis the global warming racket.
Cambria is forgiven. When is the next drink at the Clock? I'll be friendly again.
Here is what Italians gave me growing up. The greatest power in art that I'd ever seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIJIXMX2zw8
Look at these Italians. Before this very day otherwise known as "Boot-Niggers" Surely we can see the great artistry of these people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NelPe_T9Qr8
it's nice to see friends bury the hatchet on a blog
Well that may be going too far. But the last Roman is off the hook. I judge him a patriot. And all his descendants are grand in my eyes.
Brings tears to my eyes.
Post a Comment