Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Donald Trump and his attempts to destroy our planet and societies

Sou | 3:46 PM Go to the first of 55 comments. Add a comment
Here are some things that Donald Trump is doing to help wreck the environment, the USA, and the world - up to his first four days in office. (This article is an expansion of something I recently wrote at HotWhopper Chat):
  1. Nominating science-deniers and corporations (or their proxies) to Cabinet positions (like in charge of the EPA) 
  2. Nominating a clueless anti-education person to head up education (keep the plebs ignorant) 
  3. Hastening the destruction of the world in general and that of native Americans, by approving the Keystone and Dakota oil pipelines 
  4. Silencing (not merely censoring) science and environmental organisations: National Parks, EPA, Department of Agriculture etc.

Killing jobs, killing the environment with pipelines

Trump lies (again), with his ridiculous if meaningless claim that  "I am, to a large extent, an environmentalist, I believe in it", while in the same breath he says he's going to give "permits" to anyone who wants to wreck the environment. Here he is in one of his first actions aimed at wrecking the environment:

Donald Trump signing another order to wreck the world. Source: Twitter

Disadvantaging farmers and the US agricultural sector

    The Department of Agriculture is not even allowed to promote its published research. This, together with his isolationist stance and wanting to bring in high tariffs, will not be good for US farmers and the US agricultural sector. (It will probably help the agriculture sectors in Australia, South America and South Africa, though.)

    From The Hill:
    President Trump has banned employees of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from giving social media updates and speaking with reporters, according to The Associated Press.
    The EPA ban comes amid other reports of agency staff being restricted from interacting the members of the Congress or the general public.
    BuzzFeed reported Tuesday that the Department of Agriculture instituted a similar ban, telling its employees not to distribute information about research papers or to post on Twitter under the agency's name.
    A Tuesday report in the Huffington Post said agency employees under the Department of Health and Human Services were told not to speak to public officials.

    Preventing public natural disaster warnings, and climate, agricultural and environment news

    The Trump administration has ordered gags on public announcements from Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This includes the National Parks service. In some cases it's even forbidden people to blog. These gag orders will prevent farmers, tourists and the general public from getting critical information when it's needed. That's probably just an unintentional side effect. The aim appears to be to prevent the public from receiving information in general, about new science, the climate and the environment that sustains them.

    Walling in Americans

    Trump is not just wanting to build a wall to keep out Mexicans and refugees from the Middle East, it seems to me that he is effectively wanting to build a wall to cut off the USA from the rest of the world.

    Bullying corporations

    He is brow-beating US and international corporations. I wonder how many will buck him, and how many will be spineless and kow tow to him? 

    I have to say that it doesn't look as if everyone is happy in this picture of auto manufacturers, though Donald and his henchmen are wearing their trademark imbecile grins:

    Donald Trump browbeating US auto manufacturers. Source: Twitter.

    Killing women and harming the poor

    He and his band of old men has just signed the Gag order to kill not just women, but that will deprive needy people of services offered by NGOs around the world.

    Donald Trump signing the Gag Order to kill women and harm the poor, surrounded by old grey men with not a woman in sight. Source: Huffington Post

    Trump the wanna-be tyrannical dictator

    He also took on the mantle of a dictator, in a gross imitation of North Korea, formally declared his inauration day as "National Day of Patriotic Devotion" - can you believe it? If not, the evidence is here on the Federal Register.

    Donald Trump in an imitation of the world's worst tyrannical dictators. Source: Federal Register: The Daily Journal of the United States Government

    Trump doesn't want to hear you

    It's reported that he's cut off any means of the public communicating with the White House, too.

    The most unpopular President at inauguration

    One slim ray of hope is that Trump set a new record as the most unpopular President on inauguration.

    Few approve of Donald Trump. Data source: Gallup

    Lessons from George Orwell's 1984

    BTW - the No. 1 best seller in Contemporary Literary Fiction on Amazon today, is George Orwell's 1984 (archived here):

    What else is in store?

    This is just some of what Donald Trump has done so far. What else has he and his henchmen (and a couple of henchwomen) done lately?

    PS - I see that he's just tweeting he's going to take over state and city jurisdictions now - sending in "the Feds" - though he doesn't say which "Feds", or how he's going to get around the 10th amendment:

    Donald Trump taking over states and cities. Source: Twitter


    1. Apparently the Chicago tweet appeared immediately after an O'Reilly Factor segment on the Chicago shootings. The unhinged old coot is sitting in front of Fox TV rage tweeting the first threat that comes to mind. Let us hope that Fox don't a segment on North Korean missile tests or similar any time soon.

    2. Was the research indicating Trump is unpopular conducted by the people who predicted a landslide victory for what's her name?

      You lost Sou, get used to it.

      1. Don't be daft, Eric. You know I'm Australian.

        It's Americans who lost, not me, or you. Or not directly. (The whole world is losing because of the place that the new US Supreme Leader/Emperor/wannabe dictator has in the world.)

        Don't worry, I get it that you want to stop any new knowledge, particularly any that will help us survive climate change. I get it that you want to burn all the books and put an end to scientific research and destroy what's been achieved over the past several decades. And I get it that you despise women and applaud the US preventing poor people in the world from getting access to health and social support. I get it that you're a right wing authoritarian follow who bows and scrapes to scum-bucket politicians.

        (BTW - watch out for my upcoming article about how you tried to inoculate WUWT readers against accepting scientific facts. Pretty pathetic attempt on your part.)

      2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      3. BTW - this looks like the last Gallup poll before the election. It seems fairly reflective of the result of the popular vote.

        Of course if not for gerrymandering and voter suppression, the result may well have been different. Who knows? Probably a different result if voting had been compulsory, or if there were preferential voting. Definitely the result would have been different if it was just based on all votes, not states. Signs are not good for real democracy in the USA any time soon.

      4. You know the comment policy, Eric. (Climate or any disasters are not something to joke about.)

        And yes, Australian politicians are determined to add to climate woes. I'm trying to do what I can. What are you doing about it, apart from egging them on to worse travesties?

      5. Hey Eric. Do you remember whatshisname? You know the climate science denier and right wing authoritarian who loved eating raw onions with the peel on. I recall you and your fellow climate cranks were confident that all talk of global warming would end once whatshisname became the Australian PM. Apparently the plan was that he would roll back the laws of physics and suddenly the psuedo-science gibberish that you post to WUWT would make sense. Damn, I forgotten his name. Where is he these days?

        And there is no chance of Australia building a new coal plant of any type. That is about as credible as Trump making coal great again.


      6. Great to see that Eric accepts his place as a part of the alt-facts brigade. With the fossil fuel industry installed in the White House he no longer feels the need to deny he is a liar among liars, producing misinformation for an industry which puts short term profits before the welfare of the entire human race.

        Sou may disagree, but I think every living being on this planet lost. Eric Worral lost, although he is too stupid to realise it. Even Rex Tillerson lost.

      7. Hi Sou,

        Word has it that Eric was seen trudging all over Hervey Bay on November 8 looking for a Polling Booth where he could lodge his vote for Trump.

      8. Was that him that everyone was laughing at? Lol!

      9. Hi Sou,


        Eventually he found an empty phone box, stepped inside and spent the next three hours looking for a how to vote card.

      10. We all lost Eric. Only you're too caught up in your fantasy to realise it.

      11. Was the research indicating Trump is unpopular conducted by the people who predicted a landslide victory ...?

        I do not know who did the research? Do you? There have probably been a few polls by different organisations.

        I do not remember any predictions of a landslide victory. All the predictions I saw said the result would be close. And yes, HRC was predicted to be the much more likely winner and there was only an outside chance for Trump. But that is exactly what happened. Trump scraped in by the results of three states. The outside chance.

        I guess you like your own alternative facts and memories.

      12. Eric,
        "Was the research indicating Trump is unpopular conducted by the people who predicted a landslide victory for what's her name?"

        You seem not to understand the difference between a measurement and a projection.

        A poll is a measurement of opinion at a specific time. A projection is the result of a model that attempts to extend observed trends into the future.

        I'd think someone who pretends to know something about climate science (or science of any type, or math) would know the difference here. It says quite a lot that you don't.

      13. "Was the research indicating Trump is unpopular conducted by the people who predicted a landslide victory for what's her name?"

        Given that even Trump seems to think the election was rigged and there were millions of illegal votes, maybe the polls were correct and it's the election that was wrong. It would only require a few thousand illegal votes in some states to have turned a huge loss in the popular vote into a small win in the electoral college.

    3. "Signing orders to move forward with the construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines in the Oval Office"

      Why would president Dumbo want to construct pipelines in the Oval Office? :-)


      1. Maybe someone offered to pay him for it. Or put his name on it, in gold lettering.

      2. More seriously, Trump has money invested in the company building the Dakota pipeline. Hasn't he just violated the Constitution all ban on a President benefitting from his office?

      3. I am pretty sure the ban is only on foreign payments. The conflict of interests rules do not apply to the president. there is a big difference between legal and moral, although Trump does not seem to recognize that.

      4. To back up what Entropic man is saying:


        I suppose this will be a good test case for all those 'checks and balances' the U.S. system is supposed to have... or not. My guess is that all complaints about conflicts of interest from the opposition, now matter how obvious they are, will be stonewalled/ignored.

        It's the Rethuglicans that are going to have to step up to the challenge of keeping Trump honest, and the chances of that are rather slim indeed because they're all in it together.

    4. Eric Worrall, I've been thinking a lot about denial of truth and scientifically-supported fact, and how the conservative mind is refractory to education and evidence that support facts that are distasteful to right-wing ideology. Climate change denial is the most pernicious exemplar in the context of long-term harm to the biosphere and to human societies but evolution denial, tobacco- and asbostos-caused cancer denial, and vaccine-efficacy denial are also noteworthy amongst a slew of other examples.

      These denials usually arise from what is, at the most essential level, a fear of something. A fear of losing one's ability to live a particular lifestyle (even if it harms others), or a fear of losing one's easy income (even if it harms others), or a fear of losing the comfy blanket of one's fear-assuaging superstitions one's (even if it harms others). So I am curious - what are you so afraid of that you promulgate so many lies, misrepresentations and deceptions about the science of climate change, and about the serious implications of this science?

      Are you afraid that you might have to pay more for fossil-furled energy, and that this might make your life a little less profligately enjoyable (even though it wouldn't, in the long-run)? Are you afraid of losing your (apparently) God-given rights to live any way that you choose, and that this might make your life a little less profligately enjoyable (even though it needn't, if you used your initiative and an empathy for the world around you)? Are you afraid of losing your and/or your friends losing their income/kicks-back/whatever other benefits are garnered from the science denial industry, and that this might make your life a little less profligately enjoyable (regardless of the harm that it brings and will bring to others)? Are you afraid of losing your standing in the fearful-of-the-real-world science-denying community, and that this might make your life a little less ego-driven enjoyable (even though it needn't, if you showed some intellectual honesty and integrity and admitted the strength of scientific understanding)? Are you afraid of losing your self-cultivated illusion that refuses to acknowledge that the future is not safe because humans are severely damaging the planet, and that this might make your life a little less enjoyable (despite the fact that this knowledge will thunder into your mind on your deathbed and render your last moments ones of anguish and self-loathing)?

      What is it that renders you so afraid Eric Worrall? What is it that has you in such a lather of denial and avoidance and self-deception?

      1. Some Harvard researchers are reporting that it's probably that the Eric's of the world are scared of knowledge, experience and overall competence, so they elect incompetents and worse - they deliberately disinform people.

        That's not inconsistent with Bob Altemeyer's research on right wing authoritarian followers.

        It's also what was predicted by Carl Sagan.

        And Shawn Otto has written a strong warning about the risks of the dumbing down of the world, too.

        Whether Eric's scared of knowledgeable people, or just in it for laughs or money, or whether he really is as dumb as he makes out, I don't know.

      2. The foreboding of Carl Sagan.

        I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

      3. Bernard, kind of you to take an interest in my mental wellbeing - I'll assume that you mean well.

        I don't fear that a high climate sensitivity would force me to make traumatic personal lifestyle changes, because I don't believe such lifestyle changes would be necessary, even if climate sensitivity is dangerously high.

        If I thought climate sensitivity was high enough to cause a problem, the obvious solution would be to embrace zero emission nuclear power. My focus would be on removing political roadblocks to the adoption of nuclear power.

        As former NASA GISS director Dr. James Hansen is also a fan of nuclear power, a few years ago I contacted him directly, in good faith, to see if there was any possibility of finding common ground on the nuclear issue.

        Sadly Dr. Hansen and I were unable to find that common ground.

        France has for decades demonstrated that a nuclear powered economy is possible - so there are no technical obstacles which would prevent a global shift to nuclear power, only political obstacles.

        Many (though not all) skeptics feel the same as I do about nuclear power. So it is a mystery why this idea that we reject climate alarm due to fear of the consequences to our personal lifestyle options is so persistent.

        Even if you think I am wrong about nuclear power being the obvious replacement for fossil fuels, if CO2 is a major problem, I hope I have made it clear that this is what I believe.

        I just think you're wrong about the risks of CO2.

      4. I've commented previously how prescient Sagan was with this observation, and how he arrived at it before the Age of the Web, mobile 'phones, and Faux News. And Orwell deserves kudos with lashings of whipped cream for coming to an even more nuanced and accurate vision, half a century before Carl.

        I'll add a couple of small off-the-cuff ones of my own...

        If Trump serves out four full years then the US is absolutely doomed to fall from its place as the world's pre-eminent superpower, and will rapidly drop behind both China and Russia - and one day behind India. A significant part of the impetus for such a decline will be the snowballing ignorance and stupidity that Sagan raises in his commentary, compounding the delay in action that has already locked in damage that in any enlighted society would be considered unspeakable to be permitted with forewarning..

        If Trump somehow manages to scam two terms, human society as we know it will eventually collapse from the sequelæ, and the planet's biodiversity will be hammered in and especially egregious manifestation of the 6th major extinction event.

        The second scenario may very well occur after the first term, but is almost certainly guaranteed after the second.

      5. None of which explains why Eric tells lies about climate and climate science. (Odd, too, that he equates fear with mental well-being. It would be a sign of mental well-being to be fearful of climate change, though not so much that one has to deny it, so perhaps that's an acknowledgement by Eric that he knows something is seriously wrong with himself. Still, IMO, being a frequent disinformer and liar, like Eric, has more to do with immorality than mental well-being.)

      6. Eric

        There is no plausible way nuclear can decarbonise global electricity demand let alone TPE.

        Stop bullshitting.

      7. "I don't believe such lifestyle changes would be necessary, even if climate sensitivity is dangerously high."

        You're doing it again - your mind is engaging a logical fallacy (appeal to incredulity) to avoid confronting scientific reasoning that says otherwise.

        "If I thought climate sensitivity was high enough to cause a problem, the obvious solution would be to embrace zero emission nuclear power. My focus would be on removing political roadblocks to the adoption of nuclear power."

        Again with a logical fallacy. Whilst I have no issue with nuclear energy in a subset of contexts, there are insurmountable impediments to powering all (or even a substantial portion of) human energy requirements with nuclear energy. Actual solutions are complex and to a degree unpalatable for many Westerners, but they would necessarily include renewables and behaviour changes. That you don't seem to be open to these aspects of mitigation indicates that you are engaging in selective avoidance of confronting issues that would otherwise raise a cognitive dissonance.

        ""France has for decades demonstrated that a nuclear powered economy is possible - so there are no technical obstacles which would prevent a global shift to nuclear power, only political obstacles.

        Yet more logical fallacies. That France has a current high nuclear capacity does not mean that it was won without a high input of non-nuclear energy, nor without a high indirect footprint in both the establishment and the ongoing operation of the nuclear industry.

        And there is the assumption that the French model is scalable to the rest of the world. There is no evidence that I have yet seen that defensibly supports this, and there is actually the evidence of thermodynamics that suggests very much the opposite, especially over progressively-increasing periods of time. And there's also the physics of complex systems, which is in part a corollary of the preceding sentence...

        "Many (though not all) skeptics feel the same as I do about nuclear power. So it is a mystery why this idea that we reject climate alarm due to fear of the consequences to our personal lifestyle options is so persistent. "

        Several logical fallacy in this one too. For starters your attitude to nuclear power isn't a defence for your lifestyle options: I'll leave it to you to figure out why, and what the other fallacies might be.

      8. "I just think you're wrong about the risks of CO2. "

        It's not "me" that's you're accusing of being "wrong", it's several whole disciplines of science. I've spent decades myself working as a scientist so I accept the best evidence that I can glean from my colleagues who have expertise in their particular fields, and I am well able to assess for myself the veracity of work in my own field (ecology). In fact I'm well-acquainted with species and ecosystems that are in peril from the warming that we've already realised, so I already know some of the risks of emissions of CO₂.

        I'll repeat that for your benefit - it's not me that has estimated the risks of CO₂, it's thousands of my colleagues and the weight of empirical evidence. But you can go with your "just think"… it's more of that personal incredulity.

        It's a difficult thing to confront one's fears and prejudices. I've had to do it many times in my own life, and on occasion I've been shaken, shamed and humbled to have had to deal with some of the beliefs that were instilled in me, especially when I was pre-adult. I learned the lessons though, and I've tried to carry an open-mindedness and flexibility of thinking going forward, despite the fact that doing so can be frightening.

        I understand that confronting the implications of climate change can be frightening to one's personal view of the world. But if the science is correct (and in any objective analysis there's been no counter science that actually defensibly suggests otherwise) then the consequences of denying it are even more frightening.

      9. I've made a lengthy answer to bring more information to the french nuclear debate, but I'm not sure I hit the button "publish" properly ... Sou, could you please tell me if you have something in your moderation backlog from me ?
        I may post once again, but my procrastinating side would really be pleased if I don't have to :)

      10. Sorry, bratisla. Nothing is in the spam folder. There's no trace of your comment.

      11. Well, it will teach me to finish a report at 3 AM :) I will stick to the short version then.
        So, about french nuclear electricity.

        On the plus side, the massive build in the early eighties (around 40 - 50 reactors if I remember right) allowed France to be far less dependent on oil during a time when oil price skyrocketed.
        But it came with a price. Several, to be precise.
        - the vast majority of reactors was built with an old design( Westinghouse 60s) that itself was derived from early nuclear submarine reactors. Although the PWR reactors are safer than RBMK designs, they can be vastly improved
        - the reactors are old and thus running costs increase ; the planned replacement (EPR) is plagued with problems and building costs are skyrocketing.
        - the biggest problem is, however, that the dismantling costs are currently vastly underestimated. It is estimated that current customers pay only half the price they should if the dismantling costs were correctly taken into account. And this is not a leftist green cheese-eating monkey saying that, but the French Office of Accountability.

        Sooner or later, France will face a very serious problem with its nuclear option. Add to that a nuclear technostructure acting as a shadow state within a state with few transparency, the nuclear waste problem, and my doubts about security on some (not all) sites, and you have a picture less nice than touted by EDF PR people ...

        Not saying that nuclear power was not useful, but it is a two edged sword and one must be extremely careful when wielding it.

        And don't even get me started on the idea of using sodium as heat transfer fluid for the surgenerators. Typical idea from a french engineer freshly promoted from the "best" schools (without any practical formation like in *real* engineer schools).

      12. Bratisla, nice summary. Shame that your original post disappeared - and you're in company when it comes to 3:00 am posting catastrophes...

        Anyway, now that Eric Worrall has been challenged on the nuclear issue I am sure that he'll soon post again with verifiable facts and figures to defend his original statements.

        Or not...

    5. Hey Eric

      What is your complaint with a revenue neutral carbon tax?

      I'd have thought that should fit neatly with your conservative ideology. It would be transparent and minimal government.

      I firmly believe that such a carbon tax should be the universal goal...even Rex Tillerson has expressed it as his preferred policy option.

      The problems with nuclear (as I see it) are more centralised power monopolies, the absolute nessesity of public funding, security and waste issues, high end overall cost and one hell of job to win over opponents who'll go way beyond the small constituency of bearded greenies.

      There's no point addressing your opinion on the risks of CO2, I prefer to consult more qualified sources.

      1. Wow, I can't believe we have Rex Tillerson, Tony Abbott and James Hansen all singing from the same song sheet.

        Why on earth can't we make progress on this?

    6. I purchased a new copy of 1984 from rare books last year my original one in the early 70's was lost as i lent it many times.
      I have recently had to quote for instance the use of "newspeak" many times as i read statements being made from people now in power who frankly use such language. Depressing yes unexpected no this is what you get with the ever more stupid society is becoming.
      The present emulation of this is the USA where a new broom is in place who embrace using newspeak to a very high level just look at the very first press conference given what a absolute joke that underlines my statement.
      False statements were given this is pathetic there is no other way to explain it but absolutely pathetic.

      1. I totally agree about the sales, however this become chilling apparent to me in a recent dialogue with the Lord Monk.
        He was making out i followed the leader whereas in fact he and his elk are exactly what Orwell was writing about.
        Honestly now I feel we live in the educated idiot society.

      2. Perhaps Eric can explain why he is happily endorsing an administration which is trying to silence contrarian voices. Or are contrarian voices only allowed in Eric's view when they are working in the fossil fuel industry's interest?

      3. If you live in Australia, George Orwell's works are in the public domain, so you can download "1984" from Project Gutenberg Australia (http://gutenberg.net.au).

    7. France has for decades demonstrated that a nuclear powered economy is possible - so there are no technical obstacles which would prevent a global shift to nuclear power, only political obstacles.
      At the moment France is importing power and paying more than Germany so much for your brilliant nuclear solution.
      Link to article.

    8. Replies
      1. Ha ha. The fact that there is a Downfall parody of The Donald after only 3 days in office says it all.

        [meta. I hope. In very small print anyway... just in case I'm wrong about that]

      2. Normally those videos are mildly amusing, in this instance it just looks like documentary footage from the White House.

        I felf a bit sick watching it.

    9. Apparently DT has issued an executive order to build the wall.

      Just remind me what all that taking him literally or not was about. He is turning out tp be troubling literal.

      1. Not quite. He has set a record for the fastest failure to honour an election pledge. Within his first hour even.

    10. The wall has been ordered by the LEADER to be built.
      Who is going to pay for it?
      Scant information thinks that Mexican companies can deliver it at the cheapest rate.
      I think it the newspeak area we are now in that the LEADER will pronounce what a wonderful achievement it was using USA labour to build the wall.
      Welcome to 1984/2017.

    11. [Apologies for using this thread as a landing pad Sou, but for some reason I cannot get this post up at Greg Laden's. I'd like to chip in before the conversation there moves on, so I'll try linking to here...}

      [Wow at #44. I initially tried to post this immediately after your post at #41, but despite several attempts it didn't materialise. I've finally twigged to the fact that it might be due to my use of a term that describes a pla@ying c@rd so I'll replace the term with "ignorants", and hope that this time it will be visible...]

      Wow at #37:

      "Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling"

      I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli's. If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth's analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.

      However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I'll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there's probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C

      Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ± 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people's guesses for climate sensitivity.

      3.4 °C ECS is Bad. 4.2 °C is probably incompatible with any scenario for continued human civilisation beyond the 21st century, barring a sudden global pandemic that decimated in particular the industrial populations of the planet.

      Heck, even just 3.0 °C would be bad. Unfortunately the empirical data suggest that even this relatively low value, as extrapolated from the data to date, is an impossibly optimistic expectation of what will eventually manifest. Ignorants like RickA who still plumb for 2.0 °C ECS are ignoring the simple fact that the warming realised to date shows that even the TCR is well past this for a doubling of CO₂ over pre-Industrial levels. The only way that such values could be realised would be if all the known laws of radiation physics suddenly broke down beyond the current concentration of atmospheric CO₂, and that's about as likely to happen as someone falling from the 20th floor of a building and sailing past the 10th claiming that acceleration due to gravity is going to cease and indeed reverse, and that he'll land with a gentle bump.

      It might feel good to wish such fancies, but it isn't going to happen.

      [*I cannot find the thread where Tamino asked for people's climate sensitivity estimates - if anyone knows where it is I'd be most appreciative!)

      1. Following on from my comment above about the background trend of decreasing temperature for the second millennium, I've just downloaded the data from Marcott et al 2013 and checked the 1,000 years prior to 1750. A linear regression shows a decrease in the temperature of almost exactly 0.4 °C/1k yr (0.396 °C for those who like too many decimal points...), which works out to an expected 0.1 °C decrease since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as I eyeballed before. Superimposing this on the 1.2 °C increase that the Berkeley Earth data indicate for 1751-1760 through to 2007-2016, the overall increase in temperature would be as I indicated in the post above - a 1.3 °C increase in mean global temperature for an increase in atmospheric CO₂ from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

        So, as I said above, on the basis of changes since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to now, this approach to calcuation would put the transient climate response at 2.5 °C per doubling of CO₂...

      2. Bernard J. said:

        I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli's.

        According to me, Bernard, the term "discussed with" cannot be used in the same sentence with "Gallopingcamel" or "Tom Fuller". I believe the term you are looking for here is "completely wasted my time".

    12. With regard to our voting situation, I've been following this on and off, with some care, since the late 1990s, and voter suppression is a thing, particularly in red states. Here's a (slightly polemical, but nonetheless accurate) scandal sheet on that (surprise surprise it's a Koch effort):

      I think people have some idea that it has been fixed, but actually despite some successful legal challenges it is bad, and now will become much worse. It's hard to estimate the actual numbers, but there are plenty of stories and it certainly is enough to have thrown the election in Trump's narrower margin states.

      For a humorous take, here's a slightly vulgar Sarah Silverman: "Let My People Vote 2012: Get Nana a Gun": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypRW5qoraTw

      There is simply no way to force a determined local Republican authority not to disenfranchise voters. There's no defense like a good offense.

    13. Unfortunately it would appear that the Leader is going to lead by using an announcement on some kind of idiot outlet called tweet.
      Now this works because the followers believe what ever delusional post is made.

      I am just a little bit worried about this as the last time this type of delusional comments were made was like the news outlets are not correct was made in the 1939 period.
      No country with a decent system of governance can tolerate this rubbish.
      If this situation is allowed to be tolerated in the USA i frankly feel there is a failure in the men/women who should stand up for truth and justice.


    Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

    Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.