August 22, 2019

At the Thursday Night Cafe...

... it’s your turn to talk.

74 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Yad, Yada, Yada.

RK said...

Blah blah blah

narciso said...

Michaek yon sees this as a result of a ling term chinese info op
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/defense/458439-pentagon-expresses-concern-and-disappointment-over-axed-south-korea-japan%3famp

Seeing Red said...

Via Powerline:

...What was Shaviv’s sin? He argues that the Sun is largely responsible for variations in the Earth’s global temperatures–on its face, a plausible view. But orthodoxy demands that we all pretend that carbon dioxide is a miraculous control knob that governs the Earth’s climate, to the exclusion of all other (often far more important) factors, despite ample evidence from the planet’s geological history. Forbes unfortunately knuckled under.

More:

Shaviv strongly supports the Svensmark hypothesis and has co-authored papers with Svensmark. The key issue is that Shaviv considers that the increase in solar irradiation in the 20th century contributed one-half to two-thirds of estimated 20th century warming.
***
One of the strongest pieces of evidence is a graph of over eighty years, from about 1915 to 2005 showing the relationship between Sea Level Change Rate (mm/year) and changes in the Reconstructed Solar Constant (watts per square meter).). The sea level change rate is from stable tidal gages. As the oceans heat, they expand; as they cool, they contract. The relationship of the changes is quite dramatic....

narciso said...

He wrote the first profile, then epstein dies a favor for him
https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1164653683516116992

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Payback: Democrats rig Tulsi Gabbard right out of their next debate

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/payback_democrats_rig_tulsi_gabbard_right_out_of_their_next_debate.html

*****

Biden as head Gaffer-- who's 'best boy'? Beto or Peto ?

narciso said...

Does a favor, he did drop the name of fItrakis, but few expected to follow it

JaimeRoberto said...

You yada yada'd over the best part.

narciso said...


https://www.wibw.com/content/news/Kansas-judge-rules-that-immigration-law-is-unconstitutional-557888411.html

Lewis Wetzel said...

Okay, everyone is always asking me about this, so here is my plan to reduce gun deaths in America.
Most gun deaths are suicide, or young black and hispanic men shooting one another in America's big cities.
So my plan is to first take guns away from cops (they commit suicide at a 50% higher rate than non-cops). Then send the cops into black and hispanic city neighborhoods on a door-to-door search and confiscate mission.
Peace will reign.
I should be president.

Mary H said...

Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne is doing interviews on Fox and CNN this evening about his role as an FBI informer in the 2016 political races. Reporter Ryan Saavedra tweeted:

Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne says the FBI in 2015/2016 reached out to him and got him to help with law enforcement activities that turned out to be political espionage against Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz

Byrne says the request came from Peter Strzok

narciso said...

You new in town:
https://mobile.twitter.com/CHSommers/status/1164679690281521153

AAT said...

First they stop teaching people how to think and focus more on what to think. “Finishing school” universities, then it becomes impossible for people to understand how they are being bamboozled

As you increas CO2 infrared radiating toward space is obviously affected. That was proven a century ago, at least. But in a system as complicated as the planetary weather system, there are going to be knock on effects, positive and negative feedbacks too numerous to comprehensively account for. Then because they want to save the planet, only positive feedbacks are considered, and negative feedback theories are rejected as speculative and unhelpful to “the cause.”

People have been saying this for thirty years, and now thirty years later we see the result is that climate models get caught flat footed by natural variability and exaggerate warming compared to the modest warming actually measured. A warming that pretty much agrees with what was calculated by the original guy whose name I forget, before computerized climate models came into the picture. He got the number reasonably correct with a pen and paper.

Ken B said...

Gabbard has sued Google for blocking her ads.
Gabbard met the polling requirement set by the Democrats for the next debate, but they decided those polls no longer count. But Castro is in the debate.
Looks like rigging.

Seeing Red said...

SEXIST!

Blue-on-blue.

BudBrown said...

Tulsa not in debate? She ought to run in Republican primaries. Kid I know went off to college 8 years ago a Ron Paul guy. 2 years ago he thinks Bernie's telling it like it is. After last debate he was all in for Tulsi. She just needs to argue getting the budget under control and exploring nuclear power options are the most muy importance agora. She could get Trump to relive his beauty pageant days by getting him to agree lto a swim suit debate.

n.n said...

Gabbard has sued Google for blocking her ads.

Google speaks truth to fascism.

Gabbard met the polling requirement set by the Democrats for the next debate, but they decided...

DNC is in denial, again, and again? Democracy is aborted by Democrats.

Mary H said...

More from TV interviews of Patrick Bryne, CEO of Overstock, via The Conservative Treehouse:

♦Byrne now says in 2015 and 2016 the FBI operation was part of a network of political surveillance being conducted by the FBI on presidential candidates.

♦Byrne names FBI Agent Peter Strzok as the person giving the instructions.

♦Byrne names: Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump as the four candidates under FBI surveillance, and/or inside an operation consisting of political espionage.

♦Byrne claims he was offered a $1 billion bribe to keep his mouth shut.

♦Byrne claims there are additional witnesses.

♦Byrne states he went to the DOJ in April 2019 (3rd – 10th), after Bill Barr was Attorney General, because he was informed that Barr was trustworthy and going to support. Byrne told the DOJ everything that was happening.


According to the posts's author, Sundance:

After confiding with billionaire Warren Buffett, “my Rabbi” about his story, Patrick Byrne claims Buffett (a mentor and lose friend) gave him personal advice to distance himself from his company, Overstock Inc., because all of the DC interests would use his business to “grind him down”.

In essence Byrne has been given advice about how the deep state will now target him personally. This is the reason why Byrne resigned as CEO of Overstock.

♦Byrne now sees the deep divisions in the country as partly driven by this FBI operation which was political espionage. Byrne feels an obligation to share the truth in an effort to help the nation understand what was happening.

Patrick Byrne is anticipating being an unavoidable public witness to testify as to the nature of the political surveillance and “political espionage” that was happening in 2015 and 2016, and his role therein.

traditionalguy said...

The entire concept of CO2 trace gas trapping radiated heat in the upper atmosphere on its way back into deep space is a fake. And there is zero experimental results showing that could, would or should happen. It is a Big Lie.

The heat comes 100% from the sun to the earth Except where clouds block it. The Clouds over the Pacific Ocean are the control knob. Every real scientists know that.

Svensmark identified the solar flares blocking cosmic rays to cut down cloud formation and the atmosphere heats. Ergo: when there are no sunspots the clouds increase and the atmosphere cools. And cooling causes more weather change than warming.

It is so simple that no Warmist scientist has been telling the truth for the last 20 years . They all have intentionally lied for loot and made up all the scientific appearing crap the published about Climate using criminally altered data and fake programs.

They have destroyed Science.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Bodywash

narciso said...

Ha,
https://mobile.twitter.com/brad_polumbo/status/1164592518199218176

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Is it any wonder the corrupt leftwing machine speech police neo-fascist progressive power-mongers want to shut this guy up?

narciso said...

Shes on board with most of the policies, green nude eel, antiwar, pro choice, yet they cant stomach her.

walter said...

If Sean Spicier is asked to Cha Cha, should go with The Politics of Dancing

David Begley said...

Patrick Byrne, Dartmouth, Cambridge, Stanford.

buwaya said...

I suspect Gabbard is too independent to suit the little club over there.
Or from a little provincial mob, with no place in the bug city. It’s as if the Cleveland mob were trying to muscle into Chicago.
As for policies, they will of course say whatever they need to whenever it is needful.

AAT said...

"The entire concept of CO2 trace gas trapping radiated heat in the upper atmosphere on its way back into deep space is a fake. And there is zero experimental results showing that could, would or should happen.”

Not true. it’s quantum mechanics. An IR photon is emitted when a molecule on the surface of the planet heated by the sun cools a little. That photon travels for our example, straight up and it zips though a number of CO2 molecules before it hits one that traps it, which raises the energy of that molecule for a little while until it cools off a little. bit, releasing another IR photon wich travels up, or down, or in any random direction.

Think of CO2 trapping IR photons like the photons that get reflected off of a pane of glass. 95% of the photons pass through, but 5% of them are reflected back, there is a probabily that any particular photon will pass through or be reflected, but it’s impossible to prove what will happen in the case of an individual photon. it’s the same with IR and infrared, except instead of being reflected, it’s absorbed. The more IR photons absorbed, the warmer the CO2 gets, and it can transmit this heat to other atmospheric molecules that can’t absorb ir by themselves.

The more. CO2, the more times the photon gets trapped and re-radiated, as often down as it is radiated up. It doesn’t matter if its a "trace gas.” An IR photon is like the steel ball in a pinball machine falling down past the bumpers, sometimes being shot backwards, sometimes continuing on. The more bumpers, the longer it is going to take the ball to fall.

traditionalguy said...

AAT...If that is true why does it never happen like that as proven by dozens of attempts to find that “trapped”heat at the level of CO2.

traditionalguy said...

Did the ocean eat the heat. It’s not there either.

David Begley said...

I believe Patrick.

readering said...

So Trump, Clinton, Cruz and Rubio the four amigos for Strzok conspiracy?

walter said...

Amigos?
How so?

Char Char Binks said...

Michael Drejka is being unlawfully prosecuted for being white while defending his life against a violent attack by a black man.

Narayanan said...

? No FBI on Bernie the Commie ?

WTF

Char Char Binks said...

Did Trump make Byrne have Russian sex with Maria Butina?

StephenFearby said...

I couldn't watch the whole Patrick Byrne interview on Fox Business because -- although he came across as being a very smart fellow -- he also seemed in a state of hypomania:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypomania

His Wikipedia bio cites both impressive education credentials:

"He holds a certificate from Beijing Normal University, has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Chinese studies from Dartmouth College, a master's degree from Cambridge University as a Marshall Scholar, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Stanford University."

But also someone given to unfounded conspiracy theories:

"..In October 2011, Vancouver businessman, Altaf Nazerali sued Byrne for libel and defamation in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for articles published in Byrne's "Deep Capture" website. The articles described Nazerali as being involved with "Osama Bin Laden's favorite financier," and that he worked with criminal syndicates including the Colombian drug cartel, the Russian mafia, and various "jihadi terrorist groups" including al Qaeda's Golden Chain. Deep Capture also accused Nazerali of "delivering weapons to war zones in Africa and to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan," of orchestrating "small-time 'pump and dump' scams… [and] bust-outs, death spiral finance and naked short selling," and of carrying out dirty work for "a Pakistani ISI asset" who "works for the Iranian regime." In May 2016, the Court found that the allegations in the Deep Capture articles were libelous and defamatory; Nazerali was awarded $1.2 million in damages, including $500,000 in aggravated damages, $250,000 in punitive damages and $55,000 in special damages.[38] Byrne was permanently banned from publishing these accusations. The Court found Byrne, his employee Mark Mitchell, and Deep Capture "engaged in a calculated and ruthless campaign to inflict as much damage on Mr. Nazerali's reputation as they could achieve." The 102-page decision said "It is clear on the evidence that their intention was to conduct a vendetta in which the truth about Mr. Nazerali himself was of no consequence." [39][40][41]

The judgment was upheld on appeal in August 2018.[42][43][44][45][46]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_M._Byrne


Consequently his current conspiracy theory about the deep state may either be entirely accurate or just a figment of an addled imagination.

narciso said...

Well i just took a gander at that deep xapture, and its admittedly extrapolative reaearch, but the fellow who sued byrne was the least connected. Other names were leon black, an associate of jeffrey epstein felix sater an oligatch or three persoms identified by rachel ehrenfeld, the nusterios mr safra who was bill browders mentor, kislin who i think was one of the fellows mifsud llknew etc, much of this os open source material.

narciso said...

Its is the same levin of rationalization, behind the steele dossier, but that thing is kicking around like the dredel in inception.

narciso said...

Mysterious, so what a ceo of a mail order would be doing deep politics and financial analysis. But lord love a duck the daily beast has indulged in this garbage for three years now

walter said...

Try spell Czech..puhleeze.

narciso said...

Leon black, bought telemundo, which is largely responaible for the cartel bloc on spanish tv,

narciso said...

So in point of fact, if byrne and co, can be proscribed for such speculation, when what would the penalty for using such tripe to garner a fisa warrant. Because one is beltway bandit?

narciso said...

One can see how he might have drawn to this endeavour except in the blizzard of names, neither romanov (the jailed oligarch at the time of writing) nor torchin the central bank gov who supposedly funded miss butina is mentioned.

narciso said...

Tom o'neil for instance has implicated the us govt by omission or commission in the manson murder spree.

eddie willers said...

More from TV interviews of Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock

Holy Jesus...he'll be meeting Jeffrey Epstein soon if he continues.

eddie willers said...

BTW...the Global Warming people said that CO2 was the problem because a rise would set off a positive feedback that would amplify its effects.

THAT turn out not to be true and kept them on the path of lying their asses off.

StephenFearby said...

OK here's "a" logical connection to explain the "apparent" hypomania Byrne "may" have displayed in his Fox Business interview (the guy has had SERIOUS health problems):

Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne takes indefinite leave of absence over Hepatitis C complications

by David Goldman @DavidGoldmanCNN
April 11, 2016: 9:25 AM ET

Patrick Byrne, the mercurial CEO of Overstock.com, says that he is taking a leave of absence. It's unclear when -- or if -- he'll return.

Byrne said he contracted Hepatitis C in 1984 in Xinjiang, an autonomous region of China, "when a barefoot doctor sewed up a head wound under less-than-ideal conditions." He says he finished treatment and thinks he can beat the disease, "but only time will tell."

Hepatitis C can lead to long-term health problems, including liver cancer.

In his statement about his leave of absence, Byrne quoted the character Chief Dan George in the Clint Eastwood movie "Outlaw Josey Wales": "I myself never surrendered. But they got my horse, and it surrendered."

Byrne is no stranger to health problems. When he was 22, he was diagnosed with testicular cancer that had metastasized throughout his body. He has had multiple recurrences and complications.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/11/technology/overstock-ceo-patrick-byrne/index.html


Juxtaposed with:


Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2006; 8(6): 361–366.

"...The presence of comorbid bipolar disorder presents considerable obstacles to clinicians caring for the 4 million Americans infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV).1,2 Interferon-α–based therapies (interferon-α) are used in combination with ribavirin to eradicate HCV infection and result in viral clearance rates of 54% to 56%.1,3 Nonetheless, interferon-α–associated neuropsychiatric adverse effects have complicated the use of HCV therapies and reduced viral clearance rates. As a result, clinicians are often reluctant to prescribe interferon-α for patients with HCV infection and preexisting bipolar disorder due to the risk of precipitating or exacerbating neuropsychiatric symptoms.4

The prevalence rates of psychiatric and substance use disorders in patients with chronic HCV infection are higher than those in the general U.S. population.5,6 Bipolar illness was found to be present in almost 1 out of 7 patients with HCV infection.5,7 Furthermore, the prevalence of HCV infection in patients with serious mental illness and those admitted to psychiatric hospitals ranges from 8.5% to 18%,8,9 rates that are 4 to 9 times higher than the prevalence of HCV infection in the U.S. general population.1"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1764521/

narciso said...

That was three years ago, right around the time strzok was putting out the nets, why he would be hanging in the land of the uigurs is anybodys guess.

Bruce Hayden said...

Not true. it’s quantum mechanics.

Ho, ho. Big words: Quantum Mechanics.

Except that you are ignoring (either through ignorance, or intentionally) another big concept here: Feedback.

Feedback is an engineering term. It can be either positive or negative. Positive feedback with increasing inputs ultimately results in a runaway system. Every increase in inputs results in a multiplied effect. Negative feedback works in the opposite direction, damping the inputs. As noted by others above, the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoaxers assume positive feedback, since first order CO2 warming affects are very moderate (the ones you are talking about). The increase in CO2 levels alone would never get to the level of warming needed to panic the population without significant assumed positive feedback, mostly through its interaction with H2O, a much more potent and plentiful greenhouse gas. (Partly it has many more potential energy states due to its asymmetrical shape. Partly because it has stable forms of all three states (solid, liquid, and gaseous) at normal Earthly temperatures - and CO2 does not. And there is far more H2O than CO2). There has not, of course, been shown to be positive feedback, and it is highly unlikely, since the CO2 level at various times in the past was many times higher than it is now, and the Earth, during those times conveniently didn’t burn up. Instead of the assumed positive feedback assumed by AGW hoaxers, best evidence appears to be slight negative feedback.

The problem though with the feedback of H2O is that we are probably decades, if not centuries, from establishing the effects empirically. We have massive reserves of liquid H2O (esp in the oceans) that form a massive heat sink - except that heat doesn’t sit still, but is constantly moving at different levels in the oceans. Moreover, when the H2O concentrations in the atmosphere increase to a certain level, clouds form, and their interaction is very complex. Increased H2O in the atmosphere increases the direct greenhouse effect, but clouds change the planet’s albedo, reflecting more or less solar energy back into space. This all is extraordinarily complex, for one thing, since clouds vary significantly in albedo effect, as well as greenhouse effect, based on cloud type, altitude, etc.

Because it cannot be empirically determined, the climate is modeled, using greatly simplifying assumptions, of, for example, the interaction between CO2 buildup and H2O. Unfortunately, the models tend to run hot, overestimating the feedback interaction between these two gasses, and, thus, predicted temperatures. Maybe as a result of this, NOAA , in particular, of late, has been massively revising its calculations of global temperature, through changing its interpolation of a relatively small number of point sources into a yearly global temperature, based on exceedingly imprecise input data, until very recently. They are, essentially, fudging their results to conform to the models.

Bruce Hayden said...

The more. CO2, the more times the photon gets trapped and re-radiated, as often down as it is radiated up. It doesn’t matter if its a "trace gas.” An IR photon is like the steel ball in a pinball machine falling down past the bumpers, sometimes being shot backwards, sometimes continuing on. The more bumpers, the longer it is going to take the ball to fall.

Again, that engineering term, that you are ignoring: Feedback.

Here is the reality, after you get done flaunting your high school physics. If you apply multivariate correlation analysis to measurements at specific locations (to get around the problem mentioned above of tweaking the temperature interpolations used to get global temperatures in order to get results conforming to the global climate models), using CO2, along with solar radiation, earth wobble and planetary orbit vagaries, El Niño/La Niña, etc, these other factors statistically explain almost all of the variations we see in temperature. What is left, to be explained by CO2-buildup is in the statistical noise. That is to say that it’s effect isn’t large enough to statistically say that it actually affects temperature. It might, or it might not. But we can say, statistically, that solar radiation levels, etc, actually do affect temperature beyond a specified (e.g. 95%) confidence level. (Duh).

Bruce Hayden said...

Okay, everyone is always asking me about this, so here is my plan to reduce gun deaths in America.
Most gun deaths are suicide, or young black and hispanic men shooting one another in America's big cities.
So my plan is to first take guns away from cops (they commit suicide at a 50% higher rate than non-cops). Then send the cops into black and hispanic city neighborhoods on a door-to-door search and confiscate mission.


Love it.

But I would qualify your solution a bit. It isn’t all black and Hispanic areas that have such high violence rates, but specifically poor inner city black and Hispanic communities. Our AZ house is in a neighborhood that is over half Hispanic. It has an active Neighborhood Watch. The houses are new and fairly nice. A lot of pride of ownership, with well trimmed, weedless, yards. Everyone works hard, is devoted to family, and there is almost no crime. Mostly, I think, from the accents, second generation Mexican immigrants, with their parents not speaking a lot of English, and their kids having almost no accents.

Jon Ericson said...

@Bruce Hayden

*sniff*

That was beautiful, man.

AAT said...

"Here is the reality, after you get done flaunting your high school physics. “

All I was trying to do there was explain how a “trace gas” can slow the progress of an IR photon as it leaves the earth in simple terms, without jargon. Was there anything actually incorrect in what I said? Obviously there are all kinds of feedbacks, as I said above in an earlier post. Sure there are probably literally a million other factors, some feedbacks strengthening the effect and some combatting it. My guess is that all of these feedback effects roughly cancel, leaving us with the bare greenhouse effect, which matches pretty well with the modest warming we have seen in the satellite record for the troposphere, and the modest cooling of the stratosphere we have seen in the satellite era, which the effect predicts.

There are certainly other possible explanations, but you can shine an ir beam through tubes filled with various concentrations of CO2 and see the effect for yourself, as was done more than a century ago. So I think that the burden is on those who want to deny the effect to prove that somehow it has been comprehensively cancelled by other feedbacks. Cancelled dow to zero, and that is as impossible as proving that it is causing any particular trend. On account of the limits of human reason.

AAT said...

"If that is true why does it never happen”

It is absolutely true, and has been experimentally established long before it was explained theoretically. Of course there are other effects, like convection for instance. Hot air rises giving the heat a route around being temporarily trapped by CO2. A dam doesn’t stop the water from passing either, it just slows it down.

As was pointed out, the oceans can absorb a LOT of heat. It takes a thousand years for a “packet” of water to circulate through the ocean so it’s reflecting temps that existed a thousand years ago, which possibly not coincidentally, was a very war era.

No competent scientist argues that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, that’s why the 95% percent consensus is nonsense, the entire argument is over the magnitude of the effect. So when you make a statement saying that the effect doesn’t exist, you are ignoring over a century of experimental and theoretical proof of its existence and lessening your own credibilty

AAT said...

I am not sure why a correct explanation of what is basically “high school physics” got Bruce Hayden all hot under the collar.

Original Mike said...

"I am not sure why a correct explanation of what is basically “high school physics” got Bruce Hayden all hot under the collar."

It seemed a bit of an overreaction. Somebody should push back against traditionalguy's repeated, nonsensical claims about the properties of CO2. I'm not talking about global warming, on which I am a skeptic, but just the basic absorption physics of CO2.

Rusty said...

So. Bottom line. Bruce. Just not enough CO2.
All ya had to say. Just not enough CO2.

Josephbleau said...

Not criticizing anything one way or another, but I would like to see the century old 1919 dated paper of the experiment concerning directing IR beams through tubes containing variable CO2 concentrated atmospheres. That was some advanced high tech work for that era that I have not heard of. Did they use mercury thermometers? How long were the tubes? How did they keep the IR beam from directly heating the system to isolate the effect of molecular absorption? Ahrrenius used theory only to calculate his CO2 temp rise.

AAT said...

"Arrhenius relied heavily on the experiments and observations of other scientists, including Josef Stefan, Arvid Gustaf Högbom, Samuel Langley, Leon Teisserenc de Bort, Knut Angstrom, Alexander Buchan, Luigi De Marchi, Joseph Fourier, C.S.M. Pouillet, and John Tyndall.”

Sorry, I stand corrected. Doesn’t change anything about the properties of CO2. If here is one area where a person could be called a denier, it’s when somebody suggests that scientists are wrong about the properties of CO2 in relation to IR. It just makes the skeptic side look foolish and warmies tar the rest of us with that kind of ignorance.

AAT said...

I am guessing that Arrhenius didn’t have the theoretical knowledge to do the calculations, since I don’t think QM was around at the time. Even if it was, that would have been a staggering achievement to have arrived at his correct equations from first principles of physics. without the benefit of experimentation.

But I am too lazy to dig further on such an errand with such a low likelihood of paying off with something unexpected.

Bruce Hayden said...

There are certainly other possible explanations, but you can shine an ir beam through tubes filled with various concentrations of CO2 and see the effect for yourself, as was done more than a century ago. So I think that the burden is on those who want to deny the effect to prove that somehow it has been comprehensively cancelled by other feedbacks. Cancelled dow to zero, and that is as impossible as proving that it is causing any particular trend. On account of the limits of human reason.

Nope. Doesn’t work that way. You (generically) are using high school science (showing a greenhouse effect in a small, tightly controlled environment), generalizing it, and then requiring as a result, that we as a country beggar ourselves in order to alleviate this very possibly non existent threat. We are talking trillions of dollars of economic dislocation and waste, all based on your high school science experiment.

Because of this, CA is mandating better than half of its energy use be “renewables” (and apparently can’t be nuclear either) by 2130, 11 years from now (NV appears to be following CA’s lead, which will harm, if not kill, its biggest industry - its casinos). What that is probably going to mean are utility rates up to three times that of states to the east of them, causing working class and even middle class to forgo air conditioning. The state is already facing rolling brownouts in the summer. It would s likely to get far worse, given the intermittent and counter cyclical nature of “renewable” energy, versus when the energy is utilized.

Most of the Dem Presidential candidates have signed onto AOC’s Green New Deal, and essentially it is all based on that same high school science experiment. Except that most of us here understand what is really going on here - it is being used to justify massive rent seeking on the part of Dem politicians and their cronies, gaining government control over much of the economy, in order to implement a fascist style of socialism (where the government controls the economy, while industry tokenly remains in private hands). Some of it is Gaia worship replacing Christianity, for much of our elites, but most, I suspect, is based on pure avarice. How did AlGore get so rich? Much of it was through carbon offsets. And who benefitted from Obama’s green “stimulus”? Family and friends of powerful Dem politicians.

So, please explain a little better why those of us who doubt this theory have to disprove it, or you are going to destroy our economy

Original Mike said...

..."and then requiring as a result, that we as a country beggar ourselves in order to alleviate this very possibly non existent threat."

Could you point to the post where he says this?

Bruce Hayden said...

“So I think that the burden is on those who want to deny the effect to prove that somehow it has been comprehensively cancelled by other feedbacks. Cancelled dow to zero, and that is as impossible as proving that it is causing any particular trend. On account of the limits of human reason.”

First, and foremost, you ignored my point that CO2 buildup, alone, could cause Catastrophic (Anthropomorphic) Global Warming. In order to get to CAGW, you have to assume positive feedback between CO2 buildup and the much more plentiful H2O. (H2O is roughly 1% of the atmosphere, while CO2 is .04% - which means that there are roughly 25 H2O molecules for every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere - plus all of the liquid and solid H2O on the planet, contrasted to essentially zero CO2 in those states). The amount of warming from CO2 alone is not nearly significant enough to cause the sort of panic needed to justify, for example, AOC’s GND. That is why the models inevitably assume positive feedback. But, empirically, the feedback appears slightly negative.

Something else that you seem to be assuming is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is linear. This is a common mistake in science. But it isn’t linear - it is logarithmic. It just looks linear in high school science class. It appears that at .04%, the greenhouse effects of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere are dropping off. It will never, of course, reach zero. Logarithms don’t. But we appear to be facing diminishing returns.

Original Mike said...

"So I think that the burden is on those who want to deny the effect to prove that somehow it has been comprehensively cancelled by other feedbacks."

Yeah, I don't agree with that.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Could you point to the post where he says this?”

He doesn’t. But the whole point of CAG Cooling/Warming/Climate Change, etc is to impose government control over the economy. How else do you explain the fact that whether the theory is CAGC, CAGW, CAGCC, etc, the prescription is identical - beggar the economy and give control over it to the bureaucrats and politicians? And why not look at the probable positive effects of both increased CO2 and a warmer climate, instead of panicking at some highly speculative negative consequences? Indeed, one of the few things that we actually do know about CO2 buildup is that the Earth is greening, from satellite imaging and analysis. Not a lot, but it is detectable.

So, no, he doesn’t propose beggaring of our economy, but you can’t go that far from CO2 driven CAGW theory before you find it being used to justify the beggaring. Otherwise, it would just be a nice scientific theory that could be investigated in universities for the next century or two, like, say, Dark Matter.

Bruce Hayden said...

“It seemed a bit of an overreaction. Somebody should push back against traditionalguy's repeated, nonsensical claims about the properties of CO2. I'm not talking about global warming, on which I am a skeptic, but just the basic absorption physics of CO2”

I don’t think that there is much debate about the basic absorption physics of CO2. My kid’s PhD research utilized it, along the absorption spectra of H2O, methane, and several other substances. And they got their invitation to join their research project partially as a result of their physics undergrad degree. There are books that contains many, if not most, of the absorption spectra for these common substances. (Though they did have to flesh out some of the specific absorption and emission frequencies that they were working with).

Original Mike said...

"He doesn’t."

You should have stopped there. You're arguing against things that were not said.

FullMoon said...

I read he claims to have been offered a billion dollars to keep quiet. Seems slightly un likely.

Consequently his current conspiracy theory about the deep state may either be entirely accurate or just a figment of an addled imagination.

Original Mike said...

"I don’t think that there is much debate about the basic absorption physics of CO2."

Tell it to traditionalguy.

Michael K said...

So, please explain a little better why those of us who doubt this theory have to disprove it, or you are going to destroy our economy

I have never even felt the need to disprove the theories. The EAU scandals of data manipulation and programming errors were enough to prove to me that the "Science" claimed was all worthless. If you are engaged in serious science, you have to be completely honest in recording data.

Michael K said...

EAU

Sorry U of East Anglia. UEA.

AAT said...

Wow, you sure put a lot of words in my mouth I never said, but let me defend the one point, if anybody is still around on a page 2 café.

The odds that the scientifically proven, both experimentally and theoretically, absorption of IR is balanced exactly by hypothetical feedbacks is somewhere near the odds of drawing a natural straight flush in the first five cards in draw poker. We can’t know, but lukewarming seems the most obvious scenario to me. It doesn’t seem problematic to me.

Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. This is because natural systems are never closed and because model results are always nonunique. Models can be confirmed by the demonstration of agreement between observation and prediction, but confirmation is inherently partial. Complete confirmation is logically precluded by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and by incomplete access to natural phenomena. Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic. - Naomi Oreskes.

Even the author of Merchants of Doubt knocks the pins out from under the climate models.

I think that CO2 has an effect, and since we were carreering into an ice age, if you believe the hockey stick, until the Industrial Revolution came along, it may well have saved us from another ice age. Incidentally, I don’t believe the hockey stick, but I like to use that argument against people who do, because its important to think about this problem in clear terms, not from a point of view that we live in a world that will protect us from any and all bad outcomes if we simply don’t interfere. That’s religion.

gadfly said...

CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is reputed to be one of the world's largest and most respected centers for scientific research.

CERNS's CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) laboratory experiment, confirmed the mechanisms through which the sun and cosmic rays can influence the formation of clouds and thus the climate. The experiment was highly successful not only delivering all expectations by verifying the effect of the Sun’s gamma ray flux on cloud cover but also corroborating previous Danish experiments conducted by Dr. Henrick Svenmark using a high-energy particle beam from an accelerator to closely duplicate cosmic rays found in the atmosphere. This technology is far superior to anything available to "climate scientists" years after the experiment was conducted in 2000.

Sadly, even before the results of CLOUD were in, scientists and politicians were condemning the project for minimizing the claim of the anthropogenic (human-caused) nature of global warming and for repudiating the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide.

AAT said...

Yeah, there is a cabal of credentialed people who put themselves between the science and the press and have done far more harm to understanding than service to it.