Wednesday 23rd of October 2019

boiling the kettle of global warming with a denialist weatherman...

clouds

The new science adviser to President Donald Trump wants to usher in a new golden era of U.S. science—but with less gold from the federal government.

 

On 11 January, Kelvin Droegemeier filled a record-setting 2-year vacancy when he became director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). But the 60-year-old meteorology professor, who is on leave from the University of Oklahoma in Norman, didn't step fully into the public limelight until last week, when he gave an exclusive interview to Science and a speech in Washington, D.C., at the annual meeting of AAAS (Science's publisher). Droegemeier's message was aspirational, pledging to combat sexual harassment in science and to ease federal regulations on research. He made no mention of climate change, which many researchers see as the most pressing science-based issue of our times. And he said that the key to future scientific preeminence isn't increased federal funding, but stronger collaborations among government, industry, academia, and private foundations.

 

Read more:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6429/800


The article finishes with an arrow at the heart of the matter:

 

In introducing Droegemeier, AAAS CEO Rush Holt said "he hoped and expected" the new OSTP director would "clearly communicate the accepted and understood evidence on climate change, that human activity is changing the planet ... and that action is required." Droegemeier's speech offered little evidence he planned to do so, however. And he told Science that, despite a career studying the cause and impact of extreme weather, "I'm not a climate scientist ... and my work [as a meteorologist] is actually at the opposite end of the spectrum".

 

FUCK!!!!  Is Kelvin Droegemeier an idiot or what?

 

Anyway see why "meteorologist" are often "climate change sceptics".

Last month, as much of the United States shivered in Arctic cold, weather models predicted a seemingly implausible surge of balmy, springlike warmth. A week later, that unlikely forecast came true—testimony to the remarkable march of such models. Since the 1980s, they’ve added a new day of predictive power with each new decade. Today, the best forecasts run out to 10 days with real skill, leading meteorologists to wonder just how much further they can push useful forecasts.

A new study suggests a humbling answer: another 4 or 5 days. In the regions of the world where most people live, the midlatitudes, “2 weeks is about right. It’s as close to be the ultimate limit as we can demonstrate,” says Fuqing Zhang, a meteorologist at Pennsylvania State University in State College who led the work, accepted for publication in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences.

Forecasters must contend with the atmosphere’s turbulent flows, which nest and build on each other as they create clouds, power storms, and push forward cold fronts. A tiny disruption in one layer of turbulence can quickly snowball, infecting the next with its error. A 1969 paper by Massachusetts Institute of Technology mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz introduced this dynamic, later dubbed the “butterfly effect.” His research showed that two nearly identical atmospheric models can diverge widely after 2 weeks because of an initial disturbance as minute as a butterfly flapping its wings.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/how-far-out-can-we-forecast-weat...

 

Forecasting weather (meteorology) is the most inaccurate science of them all — if it is a science rather than crystal ball witchy stuff with computers these days. GLOBAL WARMING is a fairly exact science of observations, where the prediction of trends are bracketed with minimum and maximum possibilities. 

 

 

Read:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/33287

the heartland institute saves the planet with a war on china...


Please note: this is not a satirical piece...

 

 

By Timothy Benson | Policy analyst with The Heartland Institute



As someone whose spot on the political spectrum is somewhere between “Tory imperialist” and “warmongering neocon,” I have been encouraged by the apocalyptic and militant rhetoric from Democrats on climate change.

For example, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called climate change “the existential threat of our time.” Sen. Bernie Sanders labeled it an “existential crisis.” In fact, nearly all of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have described global warming as an existential threat.


This “existential” crisis rhetoric has also been mentioned by other prominent Democrats, such as Sens. Ed Markey and Chuck Schumer. The charming and media-savvy Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called it a “direct existential threat.” “The last time we had a really major existential threat to this country,” she added, “was around World War II.”

From the late Latin “existentialis,” “existential” literally means “relating to existence.” By labeling climate change an “existential threat,” what these Democrats mean is that climate change has the capacity to wipe out the human race, or at the very least our way of life. After all, according to the United Nations, we have only a dozen years to act before we reach the point of no return. Among these circles, the belief is if we don’t act in time, the world will shortly devolve into a post-civilizational dystopian hellscape full of misery, rapine, banditry, and ruin. You know, like a “Mad Max” film.

The problem is the United States isn’t the world’s leading emitter of carbon dioxide. Even if we bring our emissions down to zero, it would only eliminate roughly 15 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Not enough to avoid annihilation, and not even enough to offset the rising emissions of the rest of the world over the next decade. Now, we could probably force our NATO allies, the rest of the European Union, and the British Commonwealth to follow our lead. Likewise with Japan and South Korea.

However, that would only eliminate another 20 percent or so of emissions. Surely, the world’s largest emitter, China, is not going to be so easily persuaded, nor will rising economic power India, the world’s third-largest emitter. Nor will a recalcitrant Russia, the world’s fourth-largest emitter and a country whose economy is almost entirely dependent on natural gas production.

If we can’t persuade, we’ll have to invade. Taking a cue from great neoconservative forbearers and liberators like George W. Bush and Danaerys Targaryen, we are going to have to engage in a little pre-emptive war-making if we are to save the planet. The United States will have to invade and occupy these countries, eliminate carbon dioxide from their societies and, in the case of Russia and China, free these people from brutal dictatorships.

Launching simultaneous land wars on the Russian steppes, the Indian subcontinent, and mainland China isn’t going to be easy. Invading and occupying these great masses of land and pacifying these great masses of peoples (in the unlikely event they don’t greet us as liberators) will far overtax our military as presently constructed. The only way we can ever bring these great civilizations to heel in fewer than a dozen years is through the reinstitution of the draft and the total mobilization of American society towards a war footing.

Now, many might oppose a full-scale draft, but again, we are assured this is an existential threat, the first since the Second World War. In 1940, the United States instituted the draft to prepare to defeat the global menace of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy. We kept it in place for over a generation to check the global menace of international communism. Surely we can reinstitute it to halt the global menace of life-threatening climate change.

Progressive children already believe they are “fighting for [their] lives” by marching in protest against climate inaction. I say give them what they want and let them actually fight for their lives. These children should be filled with patriotic zeal and fervor, knowing that they would be making a true difference and could be the first kid on their block to get a confirmed kill in the name of saving the planet. Progressive parents should be proud to send their sons and daughters by the tens of millions across the globe to kill an enemy standing in the way of human progress.

Clearly, the urgency of our present crisis calls for something drastic. Perhaps millions of American youth will die ridding the world of the climate menace, but what a noble sacrifice. These heroes would be the first to tell you their lives are a small price to pay to ensure the continued existence of humanity on planet Earth.

 

Timothy Benson is a policy analyst with The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

 


 The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

 

Read more: 

 

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/10/climate-change-war/

 

This was not a satirical piece. This was pure sarcasm: Satire is the tool of the oppressed, sarcasm is the tool of the psychopath...

 

MEANWHILE, GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND ANTHROPOGENIC

 

We also need to know that

China emits 6.59 metric tons of CO2 per capita.

The USA in second total place emit 15.53 metric tons of CO2 per capita.

India emits 1.58 metric tons of CO2 per capita.

Russia emits 10.19 metric tons of CO2 per capita

Australia emits around 18.5 (or more) metric tons of CO2 per capita

 

 

Read from top.