Wednesday 27th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the challenges of measuring global warming......

THE MISES INSTITUTE HAS BEEN A SORT OF DENIALIST/DOUBTER IN REGARD TO "CLIMATE CHANGE" AKA ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING... UNDERSTANDABLY, MANY SOURCES THAT DISPUTE THE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS WILL CLAIM THAT "ELECTRIC CARS ARE A CON" OR THAT DOING ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLE RESTRICTIONS ON FOSSIL FUELS IS  AN ATTEMPT TO CONTROL PEOPLE AND REDUCE OUR "FREEDOM". WE CAN SAY WITH A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF HUMILITY (AS THE MISES INSTITUTE DEMANDS OF SCIENTISTS) THAT THE MISES INSTITUTE IS WRONG. HERE ARE THE WAY THE MISES WRITER SEES THE SCIENCES OF GLOBAL WARMING...

 

The physical sciences have greatly advanced knowledge by elucidating the workings of simple phenomena. In a simple phenomenon, we have a limited number of important variables, all of which are identifiable and measurable. This allows us to run a scientific experiment. In such an experiment, we hold all other variables constant and examine the influence of one variable on the phenomenon. We can therefore measure this variable’s direction and how important it is to this phenomenon. We can then do this same experiment to all the other variables to determine their direction of influence and relative importance. We can identify which assumed relationships are correct and which are wrong. We can draw conclusions on hypotheses about simple phenomena.

 

Navigating the Complexity of Climate Change: A Closer Look at the Scientific Method and Its Challenges

 

Frank Hollenbeck

 

Complex phenomena, on the other hand, have some or many unmeasurable or unobservable factors or variables, whose influences and interactions may vary. Thus, it is impossible to run a scientific experiment to separate the influences of each factor. This greatly limits the value of empirical or historical evidence on complex phenomena since it is impossible to distinguish between causation and association.

Economists know this problem all too well. Over a hundred years ago, the limits of empiricism in economics were made crystal clear. In the article “The Elasticity of Demand for Wheat,” R. A. Lehfeldt (1914) attempted to determine the elasticity of demand by looking at the historical data of the price of wheat against the consumption of wheat. He attempted to correct for changes in other factors (ceteris paribus) and found the elasticity of the demand for wheat to be a positive factor of +0.6.

Should we conclude from this study that the demand curve for wheat is upward sloping? Hasn’t this empirical study showed that economic theory is wrong? Should we reexamine the theory?

Any sensible economist would explain that what is observed are not points on a stable demand curve but ever-changing intersection points between demand and supply or points moving toward such an equilibrium. A demand curve is like a photograph: it is only valid for that instance since other factors change constantly so that the positions of the curves are different from one instance to the next. It is impossible to empirically measure the slope of a demand curve. This echoes Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in physics, illustrating the inherent difficulties in simultaneously determining position and velocity of an object.

Yet many other empirical studies since 1914 on different goods and services have demonstrated this inverse relationship between price and quantity demanded. However, this empiricism only supports this complex hypothesis: it can never prove it.

Economists, in general, have had little to say about climate change although they regularly deal with similar complex phenomena. Yet when economists have commented on climate change, they have added insult to injury. William Nordhaus received the Nobel Prize in 2018 for his work on an integrated assessment model that he says measures the impact of man-made climate change on the economy.

So here we are dealing with two complex phenomena: man-made climate change and its impact on the economy, as well as developing a mathematical model to describe their interactions. Never mind that many factors in Nordhaus’s analysis are unobservable, and those that are observable have impacts and interactions that are either unstable or unmeasurable. Also, any measures of these impacts are only statistical estimates. Generally, the larger the model, the larger the variance of the results.

It is normal to have differences of opinions on hypotheses on complex phenomena. These differences of opinions would be irrelevant if it remained at that level, but Nordhaus in his address recommended that governments impose restrictions (e.g., cap and trade, carbon taxes, and regulations) to slow emissions of CO2. The Paris Agreement of 2015, where 195 parties pledged to tackle climate change, aimed to limit global warming to “well below” 2ºC by the end of the century and “pursue efforts” to keep warming within the safer limit of 1.5ºC.

One study showed that burning fossil fuels causes more than 75 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and more than 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. Fossil fuels produced from existing oil, gas, and coal fields are more than enough to breach the 1.5ºC limit. Extracting fossil fuels from new oil and gas fields is incompatible with a 1.5ºC limit, according to a report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development and another by the International Energy Agency.

Hence, we have one side of the climate debate imposing on the life, liberty, and property of others on something that will always remain an unproven hypothesis. A recent study found that 99.9 percent of climate studies agree that humans cause climate change. Yet we must wonder how many of these authors inform readers of the limitations of their conclusions? Can we really call them scientists if they do not apply or discuss the scientific method?

Lost in the details of this recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is this important conclusion: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” This complexity leads to an important conclusion: acknowledging the restricted knowledge about man-made climate change.

In a world often marked by strong opinions, a real discussion on climate change should start with humility, recognizing the limits of human knowledge. Balancing scientific understanding, economic considerations, and policy decisions in this intricate landscape requires a nuanced approach that respects both the complexities of the climate system and the inherent uncertainties in modeling and predictions.

Yet in our opinionated world, such humility is unlikely.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/navigating-complexity-climate-change-closer-look-scientific-method-and-its-challenges

 

FIRST: THE SIMPLEST WAY TO KNOW THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING IS TO MEASURE THE TEMPERATURES WORLD-WIDE AND CONCLUDE: YES, THE ATMOSPHERE AND THE OCEANS ARE WARMING (FAST IN GEOLOGICAL TIMEFRAME). 

SECOND: WHAT IS INDUCING GLOBAL WARMING? SINCE MORE THAN 120 YEARS AGO, IT HAS BEEN KNOWN THAT SOME GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE ARE WARMING AND SOME ARE COOLING. THE WARMING GASES ARE WATER VAPOUR, CO2, METHANE AND NOxes. THE COOLING GASES INCLUDE OXYGEN.

THIRD: WE KNOW THAT THE EARTH CLIMATE EXPERIENCES SOME NATURAL CHANGES — ice ages and warmer periods — DUE TO VARIOUS FACTORS. WE ALSO KNOW THAT IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE SURFACE OF THIS PLANET, THERE HAS BEEN TIMES WHEN TEMPERATURES WERE HIGHER THAN TODAY'S WARM PERIOD. SAY SOME 120 MILLION YEARS AGO, SEA LEVELS WERE ALSO MUCH HIGHER (MORE THAN 75 METRES ABOVE TODAY'S) DUE TO THE LACK OF POLAR ICE.

FOURTH: THOUGH WATER VAPOUR ACCOUNTS FOR A LARGE PART OF THE "GREENHOUSE EFFECT" IN THE ATMOSPHERE, MOST OF THE CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE BETWEEN ICE AGES AND WARMER PERIODS ARE DUE TO WARMING GASES, ESPECIALLY CO2 (180 PPM DURING ICE AGES AND 300 PPM DURING WARMER PERIODS).

FIFTH: BY MEASURING CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE WE GET A GOOD IDEA OF WHAT'S WHAT. THIS IS DONE DAILY IN VARIOUS PLACES AROUND THE WORLD. THE RESUTS ARE IN: 420 PPM OF CO2 PRESENTLY. THIS IS 120 PPM ABOVE THE NATURAL MAXIMUM. THIS EXTRA CO2 SHOULD LEAD TO AN EXTRA WARMING OF THE ATMOSPHERE OF BETWEEN 6 AND 9 DEGREES CELSIUS. SO FAR WE HAVE MEASURED AN INCREASE OF 1.4 DEGEES CELSIUS ON THE NORMAL AVERAGE, BUT THE PHENOMENON OF WARMING HAS FEEDBACK MECHANISMS, DELAYS IN CAUSE AND EFFECTS AND OTHER COMPLEX PROCESSES, WHICH THE SCIENTISTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE TRYING TO ASSESS, NOT TO TELL US IT IS NOT HAPPENING, BUT WHEN AND HOW SEVERE IT IS GOING TO BE...

SIXTH: WHERE IS THIS EXTRA CO2 (METHANE AND NOx) COMING FROM? IT CAN BE MEASURED THAT MOST (99.999 PER CENT OF THIS EXTRA CO2 IS COMING FROM HUMAN ACTIVITIES — AKA BURNING FOSSIL FUELS*.

SEVENTH: WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES (DANGERS)? SEA LEVEL RISE, MELTING OF GLACIERS, MORE POWERFUL STORMS, HEAT WAVES, DROUGHT, MORE SEVERE FLOODS — ALL INCREASING IN OCCURRENCE. AND MORE PROBLEMS...

EIGHTH: THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY ACTUARIES CALCULATE THE RISKS OF "GLOBAL WARMING" TO INCREASE OR REFUSE PREMIUMS.

NINTH: WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT? REDUCE OUR EMISSIONS OF CO2 TO ZERO. 

TENTH: WE ARE BASICALLY DOING NOTHING. YES, ELECTRIC CARS ARE NOT THE FULL SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM, BUT THEY ARE A STEP TO DEVELOP BETTER TECHNOLOGIES TO LIMIT OUR RELIANCE ON FOSSIL FUELS — THE CONSUMPTION OF WHICH WE ARE INCREASING NONETHELESS. WARS ARE NOT HELPING EITHER. 

THIS IS IT... THE SCIENTISTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE MORE HUMBLE THAN BLUSHING TOMATOES. POLITICIANS AND THE MISES INSTITUTE SHOULD FIND BETTER COMPROMISES BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN. AND THE SHIT WILL HIT THE FAN SOONER THAN WE (AND THE SCIENTISTS) THINK. SAY MID 2032 FOR A NOSTRADAGUS PREDICTION...

TAKE CARE.

QUOTING THE "UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE" IN THIS MISES ARTICLE IS A CON... 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW WOULD BE A GOOD DEED....

 

not going away...

MORE CRAP FROM THE MISES INSTITUTE...

The necessary outcome of climate change catastrophism is curtailed economic growth. This is ironic because the global elites at the World Economic Forum (WEF) regularly suggest that one of their objectives is to achieve “fairness” for people in underdeveloped countries. To date, this “fairness” has involved wealth transfers from the developed to the developing world that amount to bribes for stemming further development.

Climate catastrophism boils down to renouncing and eliminating cheap and reliable energy and enriching climate alarmists like Al Gore—all in the interest of furthering a globalist political agenda. Most importantly, that is, climate change catastrophism has to do with the vaunted “solidarity,” “inclusivity,” and “international cooperation”—the means that the WEF, the United Nations, favored corporations, and their proxies in government deem necessary to mitigate the supposed crisis. These code words stand for a totalitarian regime under which a newly refurbished collectivism will abrogate individual rights and vastly curtail human freedom. As it turns out, the means for mitigating climate change are the ends sought by climate catastrophists.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/agenda-behind-climate-change-catastrophism

 

THE REALITY:

Global warming is accelerating at unprecedented pace, says study

WION Video Team  | Updated: Jun 07, 2024, 02:40 PM IST

https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-warming-is-accelerating-at-unprecedented-pace-says-study-729625

 

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

ocean warming...

The triple threat of extreme heat, deoxygenation and acidification can last for as long as 30 days. The study also found that these water column-compound extreme events tend to occur in high latitudes and the tropics and can reduce habitable space by as much as 75%.

A new study has found that our planet’s oceans are not only becoming warmer due to climate change, but are losing oxygen and becoming increasingly acidic as well. The study, published in AGU Advances, found that about a fifth of the world’s ocean surface is vulnerable to this ‘triple threat’ hitting it at the same time.

“The global ocean is becoming warmer, more acidic, and losing oxygen due to climate change. On top of this trend, sudden increases in temperature, or drops in pH or oxygen adversely affect marine organisms when they cannot quickly adapt to these extreme conditions,” the study writes. “These conditions are worse for marine organisms when such extremes occur together in the vertical water column.”

 

 

“Marine extreme events such as marine heatwaves, ocean acidity extremes and low oxygen extremes can pose a substantial threat to marine organisms and ecosystems,” the study added. “Such extremes might be particularly detrimental when they are compounded in more than one stressor.”

 

The study notes that human-induced climate change, such as the burning of fossil fuels, is the cause of this ‘triple threat’. And not only are the effects of these phenomena grave, but they now last three times longer and are three times more intense than that of the early 1960s.

“The heat has been literally off the charts, it’s been astonishing to see,” said Andrea Dutton, a geologist and climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, who was not involved in the study.

When our oceans are subjected to excessive amounts of carbon dioxide, that carbon leads to an increased level of ocean acidity while also depleting oxygen levels. This creates a disastrous affect on marine life and their homes; and in some instances, can dissolve the shells of marine organisms.

 

 

“Marine life is being squeezed out of places it is able to survive,” Dutton told The Guardian. “This paper makes clear that this is happening now and that these compound threats will push organisms past their tipping points."

 

"People have to recognize that oceans have been buffering us from the amount of heat we have been feeling on land as humans, but that this hasn’t been without consequence.”

 

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240606/russia-china-voted-against-iaeas-resolution-on-iran-1118810330.html

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

stupid you are....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNerrThyhqg

“We’re Not Stupid” | Met Office Says UK Had Warmest May Since Records Began In 1884

 

The UK had its warmest May and spring on record, despite the wet, dull conditions for many parts of the country, provisional Met Office figures show. …

 

----------------------------

 

THIS STUPID SHOW TRIES TO DEBUNK THE MET'S SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS — BECAUSE THE MONGRELS HAD TO HAVE THEIR CENTRAL HEATING ON AND IT WAS RAINING MOST OF THE TIME IN MAY, POMMYLAND...

 

HAVE THEY HEARD OF PARADOXES?

 

THE MET MEASUREMENTS WERE CORRECT: WARMER THAN BEFORE. CORRECT. THE PARADOX HERE IS THE COMBINATION OF TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY... WHEN IT'S COLD, IT FEELS COLDER WITH HIGHER HUMIDITY.

 

THE HUMIDITY THIS MORNING IN SYDNEY (09/06/2024) WAS 100%. THE TEMPERATURE WAS 10 DEGREES CELSIUS... IT FELT LIKE 3 DEGREES OFF FROM FREEZING, BECAUSE OF THE HUMIDITY. 

 

TEMPERATURE AND RAIN RECORDS TUMBLE MORE AND MORE, EVEN IF THEY ARE LOCALISED... 

 

Greater Sydney in May 2024

Rainfall

HERE IN SYDNEY, THE RAIN SEEMED LIKE NOAH'S DELUGE AND ONE WAS LUCKY IF ONE'S ROOF WAS NOT LEAKING.

 

SO THERE. GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING AND IT'S ANTHROPOGENIC, EVEN IF YOU FREEZE YOUR NUTS OFF...

 

THE HEATWAVES IN INDIA ARE BREAKING RECORDS TOO....

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

duttonic....

Dutton vows to ditch Paris Agreement 

Mike Foley

Climate and energy correspondent

 

The opposition’s nuclear energy plans would cause Australia to fall far short of the nation’s emissions target and generate more than 2 billion tonnes of extra greenhouse gas by 2050, breaking Australia’s commitment to the Paris Agreement.

Analysis has revealed the emissions blowout since Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said he would ditch Australia’s legally binding climate target to cut emissions 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.

Dutton told The Australian yesterday that the government’s renewable goal was unattainable and ‘‘there’s no sense in signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving’’. He pledged only to meet a goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

Solutions for Climate Australia calculated the extra emissions that would be generated by coal and gas plants while waiting for the first nuclear plants to be built, which CSIRO reported last month could not be achieved until 2040.

Dutton has said the Coalition would boost the role of gas power to fill gaps in the energy grid until his reactors are built, and would ensure coal plants are not shut before their energy supply is replaced.

This greater reliance on fossil fuels would generate 2.3 billion tonnes more greenhouse emissions than the Albanese government’s climate policy.

Dutton’s declaration will ensure the next federal election, due by May, is a referendum on climate policy after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese last week vowed his government will campaign on the issue every day.

The opposition’s plan would break from the terms of the Paris Agreement, which demands its members increase their emissions goal every five years, with the Albanese government committed to set a 2035 target by February. It is also at odds with findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the UN’s expert science body – that fossil fuels must be rapidly phased out to meet the Paris Agreement, which the Abbott government signed in 2015.

The Paris Agreement commits nations to contributing to action limiting global warming to under 2 degrees – and as close to 1.5 as possible

– to avoid the worst damage.

Climate scientists say reaching net zero emissions by 2050 is not enough to achieve this goal, and countries must reduce emissions rapidly now to have any hope of limiting warming to below 2 degrees, rather than waiting until later decades to deliver deep reductions in greenhouse gases.

At present, 194 nations are signatories to this deal, including all developed nations and Australia’s major trade and security partners – the US, Britain, Japan, Korea, China and India.

Dutton’s rejection of Australia’s 2030 goal will place the nation outside the bounds of the Paris Agreement. ‘‘They’re walking away from the Paris Agreement ... saying that Australia will join Libya, Yemen and Iran outside the Paris Accord,’’ said Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen.

The Investor Group on Climate Change, representing institutional investors with funds under management of more than $30 trillion, said Dutton’s policy threatened to derail the clean energy transition.

‘‘Back-flipping on these commitments and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement would corrode investor confidence at a time when Australia is competing for funding for new technologies and clean industries, local jobs and training opportunities,’’ said the group’s policy director, Erwin Jackson.

But the Australian Industry Group, representing manufacturers, said interim targets such as the 2030 goal ‘‘don’t mean much if we’re not going to reach them’’.

‘‘We need to remain openminded on technology, but we need to ensure power is both affordable and reliable,’’ said the group’s chief executive, Innes Willox.

While the government is underwriting renewable energy and transmission lines, backed by billions of dollars, to encourage industry to invest in the energy transition, its renewable plans have been hamstrung by slow development approvals for wind and solar farms, and new transmission lines are running years behind schedule.

But the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water found last year that Australia was on track to cut its emissions by 42 per cent by 2030.

Opposition climate change spokesman Ted O’Brien rejected the department’s projections and said the government’s renewable goals were unachievable.

‘‘We will not accept from Labor an ongoing dishonesty trying to tell the Australian people that everything’s going well,’’ he said.

Speaking to media yesterday, O’Brien would not respond to questions about how a Coalition government could comply with the Paris Agreement, or if it would set an interim emissions reduction target between now and 2050.

Solutions for Climate Australia drew on modelling from the energy market operator to compare the opposition’s plan with projected emissions under the Albanese government’s plan to more than double renewables to 82 per cent of the grid (from 40 per cent at present).

‘‘Our analysis shows the federal Coalition’s plan for nuclear reactors would see Australia throw its commitment to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees out the window,’’ said its campaigner Elly Baxter.

 

SMH (09/06/2026)

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....