So what’s wrong with this narrative? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.
No shit?
Nooooo shit!
It can’t be done with our current technology.
Correction: Our politicians and media’s avenue of policy changes. They will NOT look at anything else.
Predetermined decades ago and not changing their own path of propaganda and bad, bad decisions.
It can’t be done with any technology you could invent. Climate is physics. Period. The current placement of the Continents dictates your climate. Everywhere. North America moves west 8 centimeters a year. The Rocky Mountains only formed 60 odd million years ago, Appalachian Mountains (east coast NA) formed over a period of 325 to 260 million years ago. Check your weather patterns. Both mountain ranges impact whatever “weather/climate” that you enjoy today and they can’t be altered, or changed.
Carbon Taxes just take your hard earned money for a scam. They do nothing to alter your “climate”, just make somebody richer and you poorer.
Judith Curry is a very sane well informed commentator.
The real problem is that so called “Climate Change” is considered a problem.
The Earth’s climate is a collection of non-linear coupled systems, a very complex one. Even for simple non-linear coupled systems consisting of only 3 equations, long-term predictions are impossible, even in principle (see the Lorentz attractor.)
The idea that one can make long-term predictions of the Earth’s climate based on one data point (CO2 content) is pure voodoo, one could get predictions that are just as accurate (ie zero) from a Tarot card reader.
Exactly, there are not enough computers in the world to do the math even if math could apply…now for something funny…green new deal democrats style
https://youtu.be/8BjhYLUmxWQ
No kidding. Look at the mess that was created with Neil Ferguson’s Covid modelling predictions. Neo-Lysenkoism in action.
I have to agree as well.
Our current crop on in the box, protect each other, crap is of a cycling one of always repeating and yet their science sucks so bad when they try it in reality.
Ask a Climate Doomer to explain how bankrupting our clean industry with idiotic taxes and moving production to coal powered China will reduce CO2 or real pollution.
Offer to pay them for an explanation and then laugh at them when they can’t come up with anything rational.
A great question for the believers would be, “ How much of the current warming is attributable to natural variation? “.
Answer that, know-it-all shitheads. Any answer would be a flat out lie or a guess based on absolutely nothing.
There was an electrical shortage alert in Alberta yesterday. Wonder why as we have ample Megawatts installed of Wind turbines as a part of our electrical generation. Mind you with hot temps and no wind they were useless. A really good investment.
I got into that debate with climate change zealots, who told me that the IPCC position is as follows … without human modification, the climate would be slowly cooling from a peak in the early 20th century. They cite Milankovitch factors as their reason, but when I looked into that, I found that the three main factors identified by Milankovitch are very close to steady state at this point and won’t be promoting a cooling trend of any significance for thousands of years.
My own research into the question indicates that natural variability induced warmings occurred around the period 1944 to 1955 and again after 1987 to about 2006. Since 2006 I would say that the background natural variation has been either steady state or a slight decline. I am not a full-on “denier” in that I accept that the human AGW signal is real and amounts to about 0.7 to 1.0 C overall since 1950. That is not a huge amount and when you subtract it from recent frequently cited extremes, it leaves big extremes anyway.
The problem seems to be that no real developed science has emerged to disentangle the two signals, and to answer difficult questions like the role of more frequent El Nino events — even climate change enthusiasts have a hard time explaining why more greenhouse gas would fire up bigger El Nino events because the dynamics of those are very complicated and depend on different regions having different temperature signals.
So if my analysis is correct, we are looking at a climate that would be warming anyway (my belief is that the long active solar cycles of the 20th century had a cumulative warming effect) and we are just topping that up by a degree or two. If we could remove our contribution, it might not make enough of a difference to bother with the very disruptive economic programs required, but there again, it seems to me that we could accomplish the same goals by working out a scrubbing technology that worked, to reduce carbon dioxide and methane concentrations.
We have also wasted twenty years where massive desalination projects could have been built using the same money that is wasted on solar farms that go bankrupt (like the billion dollar loss in Nevada), and extensive wind energy that is inefficient at best. The desalination would only indirectly assist with climate modification, but on a large enough scale it could provide a path to stabilizing sea levels.
The water crisis is real and not only climate-related, it is population related. In the southwestern U.S., the reservoirs such as Lake Mead and Lake Powell are dropping at alarming rates because of the ever increasing demand for water in the region (Lake Powell indirectly because they have to let water out of it to keep Lake Mead from going dry). Those reservoirs have dropped forty to sixty feet leaving a huge “bathtub ring” that is easy to see from the water (crossed Lake Powell on a car ferry in 2018, it is now a shallow polluted mess, it used to back up some Colorado River tributaries several miles and now does not back up into them at all).
Hybrid vehicles make sense to me, they offer good savings and therefore are using only perhaps two thirds of the gasoline of regular vehicles. You don’t have to plug them in. If we just moved to all-hybrid by 2030 or 2035 that would probably be a fairly good approximation of the best we can reasonably do. An all-electric solution is going to drive 75% of the population out of vehicle ownership and will require infrastructure that is both expensive and not very carbon neutral when properly analyzed at all levels. Electric vehicles are great on golf courses and in retirement communities of limited size. As to electric ferries and busses, like the guy says (far too often) good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
Isn’t Alberta planning a huge new PV solar farm, 3000 acres rings a bell, when all others have failed and been abandoned? Looking forward to the rates and energy poverty that boondoggle will cause.
Article in CBC just yesterday about how we could make electric vehicle batteries reversible so that in the event unreliable wind and solar would be covered in an emergency. Just drive vehicles to where the power is needed and voila. Only reduce your battery life to 60%, bonus.
Honestly these greenies live in la la land and never had to actually DO anything. Judith Curry is a refreshing change from insanity. Michael Mann has an especial hatred on for her so you know she must be good.
I always like to point out that CO2 is only 0.04% or the atmosphere and that the human contribution to that is only 3.9%. In view of this, it is unfathomable to me that humans could be causing global warming based on CO2 emissions. Years worth of trying to reduce human CO2 emissions are wiped out in a few days by an erupting volcano. I agree with reducing pollution, but the focus on human produced CO2 is nonsense.
Linda climate change is a fraud as we know but even the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is the wrong decimal fraction!!
At present it is about 400 parts per million ! The Equivalent fraction for that is .0004 % in the atmosphere or 4 —ten thousands! The climate scientists leave the incorrect % in their daily reporting!
Judith Curry and our Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Patrick Moore are a breath of sanity!
Incorrect. 400 ppm = .0004 = .04%.
I believe someone may have commented on this a day or two ago. Looks like we’ll have another “climate” emergency every 18.6 years, as usual.
Run for the hills!
https://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-warns-moon-wobble-could-lead-to-more-flooding-more-often/
Now Trudeau will bring in a moon wobble tax.
Any tax he inflicts upon us is wobbly.
Reading a book by Steven Koonin, former undersecretary for science underr the Obama administration. The title “Unsettled” is his opinion on climate change. He notes that even with the most powerful computers their models can not replicate the actual climate happenings or even last year’s weather model hence his title.
We all know how CC is used for a political agenda so interesting to read Koonin hasn’t bought into into the falsehood.
Climate Stasis would be a killer if its like when the earth was one big fucking ball of ice.
Hey Climate Doomer please answer the Q: why do 90% of Canadians live an hour or less from their southern border?
These pole-smoking eco-tards are the reason I have a wood stove, a gas generator – and a soon to be installed transfer switch – and a variety of personal defense weapons to defend my castle keep.
Prior to reading the comments, I thought that the comedian’s name was Dave Chappelle. Turns out it’s Dave Appell. Who knew?