Damp and BS CHUCK

[Happytrails]

Drizzling here but no puddles yet. Here’s hoping we get some actual moisture.

[chuckChuck]

Sorry you are missing the rain.

If you disagree you should explain why. Only lazy debaters use the BS option without explanation.

[fjlip]

Did it rain/snow in AB? next 24 hours potentially.

[farming101]

24 hour totals from radar. mediocre accuracy

[Blaithin]

1/4” here so far. There’s puddles!

Hope it keeps going for a bit.

[Happytrails]

Lol. Radar shows good moisture in SE Alberta. We on the north edge.

Chuck I’m not debating you. I look out at trees that haven’t leafed out on May 8 and then your hundred year chart showing steady warming and say BS CHUCK. I look at your political post that is a diversion to the s**t storm that is the US presidency and say BS CHUCK.

[flea beetle]

Sorry you are missing the rain.

If you disagree you should explain why. Only lazy debaters use the BS option without explanation.

But I thought you weren't debating with anybody? You said during the BLM threads that debaters should run for politics.

Lazy debaters also block people from the other side of the spectrum!

[helmsdale]

Lol. Radar shows good moisture in SE Alberta. We on the north edge.

Alot of that moisture in SE alberta fell on rangeland. Im guessing guys in the schuler/hilda area should be happy, but they might even be on the northern/eastern edge of it. A slug of it fell within CFB suffield.

Yesterdays short term forecast models had us down for an inch over 36 Hours starting as early as noon yesterday. I seeded till 8pm before it finally started sticking to the tires. Grand total so far is 0.16"

[SASKFARMER]

I can see the front and am watching it go about 100 miles west of me. Cold Se wind plotting here and sun shining

[SASKFARMER]

Chuck I gave you a option yesterday so read what I’m writing and then reread.

You and your opinions would be welcomed but when you cut and paste and do nothing or listen to no one else’s comments you have a problem.

Lots have left and the only reason all say is it’s because of you.

Demands to act on climate change reached fever pitch at President Joe Biden’s climate summit last month, where 40 world leaders gathered on Zoom to outdo each other in their ambitions to slash carbon dioxide emissions to achieve “net zero” by 2050.

For well over half the population, to question the urgency of “action on climate change” is to question science itself, to wish a dystopian climate carnage on mankind. “It’s the existential crisis of our times,” the President said. “The signs are unmistakeable. The science is undeniable. But the cost of inaction keeps mounting.”

Yet for New York University scientist Steven Koonin, Barack Obama’s former chief scientist, it’s anything but. The gap between rhetoric and facts has never been greater. His new book, Unsettled, released digitally this week, hasn’t lobbed a grenade so much as fired a bazooka at the climate “consensus”.

READ NEXT

Teams: Blues boosted for massive Dogs test
DAN BATTEN, MARC MCGOWAN, GLENN MCFARLANE AND SAM LANDSBERGER
“Leaders talk about existential threat, climate emergency, disaster, crisis, but in fact when you actually read the literature, there is no support for that kind of hysteria at all,” he says. “The science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change in coming decades, much less what effect humans will have on it.”

Climate scientist and author Steven Koonin.
Climate scientist and author Steven Koonin.
Koonin, “increasingly dismayed” by climate alarmism, will be hard to “cancel”. He’s still alive, a self-declared Democrat, with impeccable academic and career credentials: a Caltech-trained physicist who became chief scientist at BP in 2005 and then Barack Obama’s undersecretary for science in 2009.

Yes, the planet has warmed, he concedes, and the burning of fossil fuels is partly to blame, but the impact is tiny, complex and uncertain, and occurs against a backdrop of natural climate change over thousands of years that dwarfs the recent increase in temperature.

READ MORE:A climate of burning money|Don’t make the poor pay for climate change|Useful idiots ignore elephant in the climate change room
At least half the warming since 1950 — about 0.7 degrees — is due to human influence, but it could just as easily be a quarter, climate science says.

“We are trying to understand a chaotic, multiscale system with incomplete observations, so it’s no surprise the science isn’t settled,” Koonin says. Humans affect only around 1 per cent of the world’s natural energy flows.

“We have this big system and we’re tickling it a bit,” he adds.

Since 1880, as far back as modern measurements go, global average temperature has risen haphazardly by about one degree centigrade. But it rose as rapidly between 1910 and 1940 — when emissions and the Earth’s population were tiny fractions of today’s levels — as the average temperature did over the past 30 years.

“Variations in the temperature are not at all unusual; what’s of interest is to what extent the changes are driven by humans or part of natural variation,” Koonin says, pointing out that the world’s temperature has been much higher, and much lower, in the distant past

The 1600s saw a little ice age, while the dinosaurs put up with much warmer weather.

In short, zoom in, and it looks scary; zoom out, and it’s hard to see what all the fuss is about.

Conveying the findings of climate science to the public has been akin to Chinese whispers, where the final message has been misinterpreted, exaggerated, and cherrypicked by bureaucrats, politicians and journalists, to the point it’s barely recognisable.

For instance, the latest climate science finds heatwaves are no more common than they were a century ago; the warmest temperatures in the US haven’t increased in the past 50 years.

Global wildfires have declined more than 25 per cent since 2003, and humans have had no detectable impact on the hurricanes. You’d never read that in any mainstream press.

As for the sea level, it’s been rising for 20,000 years, including by 25cm since the late 19th century — a drop in the ocean given it was 6m higher 125,000 years ago.

Even current trends indicate the sea level is rising 3mm a year, or enough to rise one metre in 333 years. Bondi is still a good long-term investment.

Climate scientists say temperatures could rise between 1.5 and 4 degrees over the next century.

What about if it rises three degrees by 2100, or twice the 2015 Paris climate change conference target?

“The net economic impact … if this happened would be minimal,” Koonin says, taking the analysis straight out of the latest UN climate change assessment.

“Even for five degrees of warming, GDP in around 2100 would be 6 or 7 per cent lower than it would otherwise be,” he explains. And even then, we would still be far richer than we are today.

Prophets of climate doom exclusively use the most unrealistic of the IPCC’s assumptions about the future, known as “RCP8.5”.

It assumes the world’s population grows to 12 billion from less than 8 billion today by 2100, and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere triples.

Never mind emissions are already falling in most advanced countries, which have promised to halve them by 2030.

Why has climate science been so twisted and obfuscated? As with COVID-19, fear sells, so news media have little interest in context or facts that might make the disaster narrative less compelling.

Secondly, “action” on climate change demands significant government intervention. Supporters of drastic climate change policies tend to also support extreme Keynesian economics and an activist welfare state.

In other words, even if apocalyptic climate forecasts turn out to be very wrong, policies to cut emission would have, conveniently for them, seen a significant growth of government.

“Do you believe in climate change?” It’s apt phraseology. No one ever asks if you understand climate change. For most people, this “belief” is little different from religious faith, taken on word from the high priests of climate change.

What’s worrying is that the advocates for drastic action to stop climate change, in the media and bureaucracy tend to be the same people who have made significant errors about COVID-19, a phenomenon that should have been much easier to forecast than the climate 100 years from now.

For all our sakes, let’s hope they aren’t so wrong about the outlook for global temperatures, given the increasing marginal cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

In 1982, the head of the United Nations Environment Program forecast “an ecological catastrophe as devastating as a nuclear war”.

Nothing remotely like that has come true.

If Koonin’s less alarmist take on climate science prove mores in keeping with reality, a lot of people will be very embarrassed in coming decades. For everyone else, much poorer than they might have been, the amusement will be small consolation.


See it’s no fun chuck read all and comment.

[helmsdale]

.47" here total. Should be able to get germination on everything, thank goodness.

[Happytrails]

It’s a great rain for seeding. The grass can use all that comes. It’s a start!

[chuckChuck]

SF

Glad to see you are now in agreement with Koonin who admits that there is clear evidence the world is warming because of increasing levels of CO2 from human sources. That's a step forward.

Koonin's quote from the WSJ :

“The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. […] Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

“Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, ‘How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?’”

Koonin's connections to big oil are clear. And he downplays the influence of humans and the impacts.

The opinion of one scientist does not negate the work and conclusions of thousands of other actual climate scientists. You can read about Koonin below.

https://www.desmog.com/steve-koonin/ https://www.desmog.com/steve-koonin/

Steven (Steve) E. Koonin is a university professor and founding director of NYU’s Center for Urban Science and Progress. From 2009 to 2011, Koonin was Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy under President Barack Obama. [2]

Before working in government, Koonin spent five years (2004 to 2009) as Chief Scientist for oil giant BP plc where he helped to establish its Energy Biosciences Institute. From 1975 to 2006, he was a professor of theoretical physics at California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and served as provost from 1995 to 2004. [2], [3], [4]

According to a response at Climate Science and Policy Watch, “Koonin mis-states a number of scientific details, and ultimately lures readers toward the conclusion that climate change isn’t an urgent problem.” [10]

The response included statements from scientists Michael Mann, Michael MacCracken, and Howard Frumkin. Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, wrote:

“Koonin mentions that this climate is always changing. This is a standard line in the WSJ because it sounds reasonable at first blush, but of course it conveys a deep falsehood. The fact is that the actual peer-reviewed scientific research shows that (a) the rate of warming over the past century is unprecedented as far back as the 20,000 years paleoclimate scientists are able to extend the record and (b) that warming can ONLY be explained by human influences.

“Indeed, it is the RATE of warming that presents such risk to human civilization and our environment. There is no doubt that there were geological periods that were warmer than today due to long-term changes in greenhouse gas concentrations driven by natural factors like plate tectonics. But consider the early Cretaceous 100 million years ago when CO2 concentrations were even higher than today, and there were dinosaurs roaming the ice-free poles. Over the last 100 million years, nature slowly buried all of that additional CO2 beneath Earth’s surface in the form of fossil fuels. We are now unburying that carbon a *MILLION* times faster than it was buried, leading to unprecedented rates of increase in greenhouse concentrations and resulting climate changes. To claim that this is just part of a natural cycle is to be either deeply naive or disingenuous.”

Dr. Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Policy at the Climate Institute, wrote (emphasis in original): [10]

“Of the many points to be made, here are a few:

“Koonin’s analysis totally fails to consider the significant risk of very serious impacts on marine life of ocean acidification from the rising CO2 concentration. Impacts are already affecting those growing oysters and other shelled organisms in the Pacific Northwest, and coral atolls around the world are at risk over coming decades—and that is pure chemistry totally independent of climate models.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

We got about an inch out of this system, some of that came as snow.
Didn't really need it right now, but not going to turn it down either.
We got almost as much moisture in the past 24 hours than we have had in the entirety of 2021 up to Friday.
-4 forecast again tonight.
Neighbors seeded what appears to be barley back in mid April. It is now out of the ground, how much frost can that tolerate?
Maybe this moisture will finally bring some frost out, and melt the last of the winter snow.
Disc still turning up frozen chunks and snow in ground that I disturbed this winter doing landscaping.

And good idea using the thread title to preemptively call out the troll. Chuck himself would be proud, after all, he is a strong advocate for taking preemptive action against global warming, so doing the same against trolls just makes sense.

[chuckChuck]

So how is it a self declared libertarian isn't up to discussing important issues and would rather just call the participants a troll? Is nothing sacred?

Koonin "There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries."

Lets talk about the residency of CO2 A5! Koonin can straighten you out. Its a good thing Saskfarmer brought up Koonin because Koonin indirectly says that your idea that CO2 has a short life time and we are going to run out of it if we don't keep burning fossil fuels is pure fantasy on your part. LOL