WSJ: "The Media Still Don’t Get Trump"

The Media Still Don’t Get Trump

The public doesn’t care about what obsesses pundits—and the president-elect knows it.

By 

JASON L. RILEY

Updated Dec. 13, 2016 7:25 p.m. ET       THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Republican pols and their supporters are accustomed to biased media coverage from a Washington press corps dominated by liberals, but there’s reason to believe that Donald Trump could have it worse than his GOP predecessors.

We are told that Mr. Trump’s cabinet picks pose threats to the country ranging from merely grave to existential. Businessman Andy Puzder is unacceptable as labor secretary because he believes minimum-wage hikes hurt job growth. Never mind that McDonald’sis currently replacing human cashiers with automated kiosks to counteract the unions’ nationwide push for a $15 per hour minimum.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, the president-elect’s choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, is branded a climate-change “denier” for writing that scientists “continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.” Liberals often resort to name-calling to shut down serious policy debates. Only a racist would criticize affirmative action, and only a homophobe would oppose same-sex marriage, right? But now we’ve reached a point where questioning the impact of something is no different from denying that it exists.

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, the nominee for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is knocked for having no expertise in housing policy or running a government agency, which is apparently more difficult than brain surgery. While Elaine Chao, a George W. Bush administration veteran who’s been tapped to run the Transportation Department, is accused of being an “insider”—i.e., having too much experience in government. Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, is unfit for secretary of state because his company does business with Russia. The same people who questioned the president-elect’s knowledge of foreign affairs during the campaign now tell us that he’s surrounding himself with too much military brass. Well, make up your mind.

Clearly, Mr. Trump can’t win, and the best way forward for him may be to not even try. The media establishment’s problems with the incoming president go deeper than ideology. The press still isn’t over the fact that a nonpolitician won the White House. The Trump victory knocked veteran journalists off their stride. Most of the political know-it-alls who type and talk for a living misread the candidates and the public mood, and we’re still coming to grips with that. Hillary Clinton promised to put the coal industry out of business and lost. Why should it shock or outrage anyone that Mr. Trump is appointing cabinet members who support the use of fossil fuels?

The current hubbub over Mr. Trump’s financial conflicts of interest resembles the debate over his tax returns during the campaign. The media was obsessed with getting Mr. Trump to make his returns public, but voters didn’t care. Reporters are right to demand transparency when it comes to Mr. Trump’s business dealings, and if he wants to maintain the trust of voters and not waste time warding off congressional investigations for the next four years, he’ll be open about conflicts of interest and work to avoid them.

But calls for Mr. Trump to sell off his hotel and real estate businesses to avoid conflicts set a bad precedent and discourage capable people who are not professional politicians from seeking elected office. Mr. Trump won in part due to the country’s distrust and disappointment in traditional politicians, yet the media continue to hammer him for not behaving like one.

There’s no shortage of legitimate criticism of the president-elect. The tariff threats are as problematic as interference with Carrier’s business model or the new administration’s talk of another Obama-style Keynesian stimulus package. Evidence that Russia determined the outcome of the election exists only in the imagination of Democrats, but foreign cyberattacks are a real and growing threat, and Mr. Trump ought to take them more seriously than he has in recent interviews. His foolish comments about women, minorities and immigrants didn’t prevent him from getting elected, but that doesn’t make them any less inappropriate.

At some point, Beltway journalists may become interested in closing the gap between their own concerns and priorities and those of their audience, but the current focus on recounts and fake news suggests that they aren’t there yet. Mr. Trump makes it clearer every day, if not with every tweet, that he has zero interest in becoming the kind of workaday politician whom journalists would prefer to cover. So long as this standoff continues, denizens of the Fourth Estate will be catering mostly to each other and the political elites.

“Most of Washington punditry,” the late Christopher Hitchens once said, is “private letters, written to other pundits, appearing in public space.” That’s never been as true as it has since Donald Trump was elected. Voters deserve better.

The Week That Was: 2016-12-10

The Week That Was: 2016-12-10 (December 10, 2016)  Brought to You by SEPP www.sepp.org  The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) PLEASE NOTE: The complete TWTW can be downloaded in an easily printable form at this web site: http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm... Please forward this Newsletter to those interested in Science and Environmental Policy. Thank you. Forward. Quote of the Week.  “In God we trust, all others bring data.” – Motto of the Apollo team. Number of the Week: 99.98% THIS WEEK:  By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Deliberate Ignorance – Where’s The Data? As discussed in the past few TWTWs, the 1979 Charney Report to the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences articulated that there were two components to possible global warming from carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The first component is a warming directly from CO2. The warming takes place in the atmosphere. Based on laboratory experiments, this warming would be modest, highly logarithmic, and likely beneficial. The second component was proposed by those creating global climate models. This warming is from an increase in atmospheric water vapor, and far more powerful than warming from CO2. At the time, there was no data to confirm or deny this warming from an increase in water vapor. Based primarily on calculations with global climate models, the Charney report estimated that “the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3ºC with a probable error of ±1.5ºC.” Since the Charney Report, we have had five reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, and several reports for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), under various names. Generally, they repeat the findings in the Charney report. Except for the discredited Santer “hotspot” which depended on eliminating data that was inconsistent with the assertion, these reports produce no atmospheric data to confirm or deny the second component of the warming, the more powerful warming from water vapor. Now, we have comprehensive data of atmospheric temperatures dating from December 1978, independently confirmed by data from weather balloons. In his February 2, 2016, testimony, John Christy, a co-discoverer of the method of calculating atmospheric temperatures from information collected by satellites, produced excellent summaries of the data from satellites, particularly between the surface to 50,000 feet where both components of the greenhouse gas warming should take place, and compared them with global climate models. In general, the models overestimated atmospheric warming by 2.5 times and by 3 times over the tropics, where the water vapor warming should be more pronounced. As discussed in last week’s TWTW, in making its finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare (Endangerment Finding), the EPA produced no data, instead relied on three lines of evidence: 1) understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases; 2) a questionable study that late 20th century warming was unusual; and 3) global climate models. The evidence is woefully incomplete. Further, any warming of the surface is not the same as a warming of the atmosphere, and can be highly influenced by other human activities such as change in land use, change in instrument locations, and change in instrument types. An example of the last type, is a switch in instruments used to measure surface ocean temperatures. Earlier methods were instruments located on ship water intakes, well below the surface of the water, the current method is to use instrument buoys at the surface. The latter is subject to direct warming from sunlight, unrelated to and CO2 – caused warming. For example, see NIPCC 2008, p. 19 & 20. To build a reliable database, any such changes must be carefully calibrated. For surface temperature measurements, all too frequently changes in instruments have not been carefully calibrated. For example, in the US, the use of mathematical adjustments for land surface records is highly questionable, because the results are inconsistent with the historic records of high temperatures. For satellite measurements, the changes in instrumentation are carefully calibrated, errors are quickly corrected, and deviations are noted. Now, three independent, competitive groups analyze the same data when received. It is time to petition the EPA for a reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding, stating that there are no data supporting the second component of the global warming theory and that its reliance on global climate models is not scientifically based, because the greatly overestimate atmospheric warming. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC, Challenging the Orthodoxy, and Defending the Orthodoxy. If Not CO2, then What? One of the most scientifically vacuous arguments advanced by the IPCC and its advocates is: “If CO2 has not caused late 20th century warming, then what?” The paper by Wallace, Christy, and D’Aleo provides the “what” – changes in the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Others, including Ian Plimer of Australia and de Freitas et al. of New Zealand, have suggested this may be the case. The Wallace et al. paper shows strong statistical relationships between changes in ENSO events, coupled with the PDO, and changes in temperatures. The statistical relationships are far stronger than the one between CO2 and temperatures. The Wallace, et al. paper applies to both atmospheric and surface measurements. This research is being confirmed by other independent research by other groups. The IPCC has considered the ENSO as weather events, too short for consideration for climate change. But, the changes in the frequency of ENSOs and changes in the PDO are not too short for climate events influencing global temperatures. Of course, correlation is not causation. This adage came with the development of statistical techniques in the early 20th century, when efforts to use correlation to assert causation produced foolish results. Conversely, without correlation causation is difficult to establish, because many other influences may dominate. That appears to be the case in the CO2 – temperature relationship, particularly for surface data. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC and Challenging the Orthodoxy. Acid – Alkaline Balance: A great misnomer in studies of the influence of increased atmospheric CO2 is ocean acidification. The term is alarming and wrong. The corrosiveness of a water-based solution is measured by its pH. A pH below 7 is acidic, a pH above 7 is alkaline, which can be very corrosive. The closer the pH is to 7, the less corrosive the solution. SEPP has reviewed no empirical studies which assert that with increasing atmospheric CO2, the pH of the oceans will drop below 7 – become acidic. Yet, we have numerous laboratory studies in which the researchers drop acid, such as hydrochloric acid, into tanks with marine life and consider the results as credible. Such actions would horrify some tropically fish fanciers who bubble CO2 through their aquariums to lower the pH below 7, to promote coloration in Amazonian fish such as discus. They would not consider pouring hydrochloric acid in the aquarium, which would kill the life. That said, increasingly, there are studies showing seasonal, and daily variations in pH, without harm to marine life, such as corals. Some coral reefs have pH gradients with depth or exposure to natural CO2 seeps. As stated in the NIPCC Report on Biological Impacts: “Caution should be applied when interpreting results from laboratory-based studies … Rising atmospheric CO2 do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life … The natural variability of oceanic pH is often much greater than the change in pH levels forecast by IPCC…” The difference between the laboratory results and the field results illustrates the need to verify the results of the laboratory in the field. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC and Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science, both this week and in last week’s TWTW. Model Issues – Importance of Aerosols in Climate Models: One of the deficiencies in the IPCC approach to understanding climate, is basing the findings on runs of a suite of models. Often these model runs are singular. Yet, as explained by Fred Singer in a paper, model runs produce different results each time. Singer estimates that at least 10 different runs are needed for each model to obtain a reasonable approximation for the results of that model. This is not done. A second major issue creating significant uncertainty in the results of models is that often the models are run producing estimates for both warming from CO2 and cooling from aerosols, small particles in the atmosphere. This procedure makes as much logical sense as expecting that solving one simple linear equation with two unknowns will produce a unique solution. The range of solutions is infinite. If imaginary numbers are added, then the range of solutions is imaginary! Is there a difference? The important CLOUD experiment at CERN began to estimate a range of values for aerosols, an important beginning to arrive at empirical bounds for aerosols and for climate models. Until bounds are established, the certainty expressed by the IPCC, the EPA, and the Climate Establishment in these simply is not justified. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC and Model Issues. After the Election: An outpouring of outrage over the election of Donald Trump continues. One thing is clear: he is upsetting the Democratic establishment, the Republican establishment, and, above all, the Climate Establishment. His designation of Scott Pruitt for administrator of the EPA will not win accolades among green groups, but Trump did not receive their support in the election. Pruitt is the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, and a litigant against the Obama administration’s so-called Clean Power Plan. Expect events to become quite heated in Washington for the remainder of the winter, even though actual Congressional sessions will be mostly symbolic rather than meaningful. It is impossible to predict what the outgoing administration will do. For a sampling of articles see links under After the Election --. Post-Election Predictions? Perhaps as a result of the election, in Polar Bear Science, Susan Crockford highlights several highly questionable assertions being made by “experts” on Arctic animals about the future. See links under Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up. Post-normal Science and Thinking: Writing in Power Line, Steven Hayward discusses what he calls “post truth” media. Hayward considers this concept as stemming from a remark by the 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: “there are no facts, only interpretation.” The concept was picked up by nihilist philosophers and continues today. Of course, post-normal view is rejected by empirical scientists who believe that facts stem from observations. Perhaps the view is the basis for some people, such as those who identify themselves as from the Union of Concerned Scientists, to label hypothesis testing as “cherry picking.” Quote of the Week: The quote of the week: In God we trust, all others bring data., was prominently displayed at NASA Space Flight Center near Houston, which controlled the Apollo missions. The activities of this center should not be confused with NASA-GISS, which focuses on surface temperatures. Gavin Schmidt, GISS director, is a listed expert reviewer of the Endangerment Finding and has produced slogans such as carbon dioxide is the “control knob” of the earth’s temperatures. The web site gives his office as on 2880 Broadway, New York, NY. The difference between the science behind NASA-GISS reports and the science behind Apollo missions is greater than the difference between Broadway and the Houston Space Flight Center. See  http://www.therightclimatestuff.com... Number of the Week: 99.98% As stated in last week’s TWTW: According to reports, on Dec. 1, construction of the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline will be all but finished. The only thing left to build, says its owner, Energy Transfer Partners, will be about 1,100 feet of pipe to be laid beneath Lake Oahe, a sliver of water south of Bismarck, N.D., that is man-created by a dam on the Missouri River. The pipe will be drilled underneath the river bed, and will not disturb it. Laying of the $3.5 Billion pipeline was 99.98% complete. This week, the administration killed construction by refusing to issue necessary permits, even though the pipeline developers won past court challenges. In addition to an enormous increase in National Debt, the US is in the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. Is there any question why? See links under Washington’s Control of Energy. We ask you to make a generous, tax-deductible donation to SEPP, an IRS recognized 501(c)3 organization. There is much to be done, to undo the damage to the economy by the current administration. Please address your check to: SEPP  P.O. Box 1126  Springfield, VA 22151 Alternatively, you may donate through PayPal. See Donate at www.sepp.org.  Thank you -- whether you celebrate Hanukkah, Christmas, or other holy days during this time, we wish you and your family happiness in this blessed season and a joyful new year. Kenneth Haapala, President  Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) SEPP is a 501(c)3 organization incorporated in Virginia with the Federal Tax ID of #54-1645372. The donated funds will be used exclusively in furtherance of SEPP’s charitable purpose and will not be used to fulfill any pledge, personal obligation, or lobbying activities. SEPP provides no direct benefit to donors as a result of their donations. NEWS YOU CAN USE: Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt Dem senator: Trump’s EPA pick is ‘corruption’  By Devin Henry, The Hill, Dec 8, 2016  http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...  [SEPP Comment: As corrupt as the “witch hunt” in which Sen. Whitehouse participated?] Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt – Push-Back The disclosure that could end Eric Schneiderman’s career  Editorial, New York Post, Dec 4, 2016  http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/the-di...  “A state judge ruled in favor of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank whose Freedom of Information request the AG had denied. That gave Schneiderman 30 days to cough up documents concerning his agreements with other states’ AGs, and with a group of green activists, about their joint persecution of ExxonMobile and other entities for supposed ‘climate fraud.’” Challenging the Orthodoxy -- NIPCC Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate  S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008  http://www.sepp.org/publications/ni... Overcoming Chaotic Behavior of Climate Models  By S. Fred Singer, SEPP, July 2010  http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/... Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming  The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus  By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, NIPCC, Nov 23, 2015  http://climatechangereconsidered.or...  Download with no charge  https://www.heartland.org/policy-do... Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science  Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2013  https://www.heartland.org/media-lib...  Summary:  http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/... Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts  Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2014  http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/...  Summary:  https://www.heartland.org/media-lib... Challenging the Orthodoxy Prepared Testimony to House Committee on Science, Space & Technology  By John Christy, UAH, Feb 2, 2016  https://science.house.gov/sites/rep... On the Existence of a “Tropical Hotspot” & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding  By Wallace, Christy, and D’Aleo, Independent Researchers, August 2016  https://thsresearch.files.wordpress... Finally there’s agreement: Ocean cycles are responsible for the missing warming since 2000  By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, (German text translated, edited by P Gosselin) No Tricks Zone, Dec 9, 2016  http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/09/...  [SEPP Comment: Under: A Showerof Papers, New Climate Models, Show Natural Oceanic Cycles The Recent Major Climate Factor!] Latest on The Myth of More Severe Storms  By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Dec 9, 2016  https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2016... Defending the Orthodoxy Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment  Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate  By Jule G. Charney, et al, Climate Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, July 23-27, 1979  https://www.nap.edu/read/12181/chap... Endangerment and Cause or Contributed Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act  By Benjamin DeAngelo, et al. EPA – Includes Alan Carlin (an opponent of the finding)  Expert reviewers include: William Emanuel, NASA, Thomas Karl, NOAA, Gavin Schmidt, NASA, Susan Solomon, NOAA, Dec 7, 2009  https://www.epa.gov/sites/productio...  p. 47 (59 on my screen)  5(a) Attribution of Observed Climate Change to Anthropogenic Emissions How to make climate progress with Trump in the White House  By Daniel Cohan, The Hill, Dec 9, 2016  http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...  [SEPP Comment: No demand to show the data that CO2 is the cause!] Leaked Transition Team Memo Outlines Trump’s Catastrophic Energy Agenda  By Joshua Hill, Clean Technica, Dec 8, 2016  https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/0...  [SEPP Comment: The author states: “I'm a Christian, a nerd, a geek, and I believe that we're pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket!”] Questioning the Orthodoxy Clearing the air  By Martin Livermore, The Scientific Alliance, Dec 9, 2016  http://scientific-alliance.org/node... Has the AGW hypothesis been falsified again?  By Geoff Brown, Australian Climate Sceptics, Dec 10, 2016  http://theclimatescepticsparty.blog...  Link to earlier article: Climate-cooling aerosols can form from tree vapors  Pollution’s sulfuric acid not needed to make cloud-seeding particles in the air  By Thomas Sumner, Science News, May 25, 2016  https://www.sciencenews.org/article... Trump Induced Panic Exposes Media Bias and Ignorance of Climate  Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball, WUWT, Dec 6, 2016  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12...  “It is not the same people who said tobacco was healthy. This is an apparent reference to the early attempt to link Fred Singer to the tobacco industry. Fred wrote a critical review of the terrible research in the original article claiming to link cancer to second-hand smoke. His review was later supported by others. Environmentalists used to claim Fred was paid by the tobacco companies and in favor of smoking. In fact, Fred has always actively and openly opposed smoking.” After Brexit! 145 MPs warn Brexit should not lead to cull of climate laws  Greener UK coalition of 13 civil society groups and a fifth of sitting British MPs urge government to safeguard climate and environment laws  By Ed King, Climate Change News, Dec 8, 2016  http://www.climatechangenews.com/20... After The US Election -- Opposed EPA fears 'unprecedented disaster' for environment over Scott Pruitt pick  Senate Democrats vow to fight Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA, a climate denier who has sued the agency multiple times as attorney general of Oklahoma  By Oliver Milman, Guardian, UK, Dec 8, 2016  https://www.theguardian.com/environ... Trump pricks prominent climate skeptic as EPA chief  By David Malakoff, Science Mag, Dec 7, 2016  http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016... Trump's EPA pick may struggle to dismantle Obama's environmental legacy  By Valerie Volcovici and David Shepardson, Reuters, Dec 9, 2016  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u... Greens slam Trump’s Interior Department pick  By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Dec 9, 2016  http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...  [SEPP Comment: Will she stem the increase in government control of US lands?] If Trump wants to dismantle Obama’s EPA rules, here are all the obstacles he’ll face  By Brad Plumer, Vox, Dec 8, 2016  http://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir... Three Reasons Trump Doesn't Matter To Energy Policy  By Jeff McMahon, Forbes, Dec 7, 2016  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm...  [SEPP Comment: According to the article: 1. Most effective energy policies are set at the state level, 2. Momentum favors clean energy, and 3. Technology trumps commodity. Why has the emphasis of the greens been on 1) Federal policy such as the Administration’s power plan and the EPA; 2) subsidies for wind and solar, and 3) ignoring that solar and wind power cannot be commercially stored.] Trump Team’s Memo Hints at Broad Shake-Up of U.S. Energy Policy  By Catherine Traywick and Jennifer Dlouhy, Bloomberg, Dec 8, 2016  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti... Trump team wants names at DOE who worked on climate  By Devin Henry, The Hill, Dec 9, 2016  http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...  [SEPP Comment: Great propaganda photo of condensing steam from cooling towers. Could it be from a nuclear power plant?] Trump Team Memo Hints at Big Shake-Up of U.S. Energy Policy  By Catherine Traywick and Jennifer A Dlouhy, Bloomberg, Dec 8, 2016  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti... Trump and the End of the West?  If America’s president-elect delivers on his promises, the long-term costs – both domestic and international – are likely to outweigh any short-term gains. If he fails to deliver, the long-term costs will fall due much sooner.  By Staff Writers, Project Syndicate, Dec 9, 2016  https://www.project-syndicate.org/o...  [SEPP Comment: A review “of the best thinking on current events and key trends.”] After US Election -- Neutral Trump's EPA pick will make Obama regret his environmental overreach  By Patrick Michaels, The Hill, Dec 8, 2016  http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl... Pragmatic energy policy recommendations for the Trump administration  By David Gattie, Climate Etc. Dec 8, 2016  https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/08/... “Post-Truth” Media Should Look in the Mirror  By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Dec 6, 2016  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv... After The US Election -- Favorable How Trump’s Climate Skepticism Can Play a Crucial Role in Achieving His Larger Objectives  By Alan Carlin, Carlin Economics and Science, Dec 9, 2016  http://www.carlineconomics.com/arch... Trump’s Election Means A Chance For “A Return To Reason In Climate Policy”, German Expert Writes  By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Dec 4, 2016  http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/04/... Trump EPA nomination a home run! Scott Pruitt tapped to reform EPA  By Staff Writers, ICECAP, Dec 9, 2016  http://icecap.us/index.php/go/polit... Rolling back environmental progress?  Having achieved major goals, US should refocus EPA and other environmental agencies  By Paul Driessen, ICECAP, Dec 4, 2016  http://icecap.us/index.php/go/icing... Problems in the Orthodoxy SHOCK: The ‘Father of global warming’, James Hansen, dials back alarm  By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 3, 2016  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12... Seeking a Common Ground Climate Heretic: to be or not to be?  By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Dec 5, 2016  https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/05/... ‘Truthiness’ and ‘factiness’ in politicized scientific debates  By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Dec 3, 2016  https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/03/... Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science The Growth Benefits of Elevated CO2 Overwhelm the Growth Damages of Ozone on Wheat  Rao, M.V., Hale, B.A. and Ormrod, D.P. 1995. Amelioration of ozone-induced oxidative damage in wheat plants grown under high carbon dioxide. Plant Physiology 109: 421-432. Dec 7, 2016  http://www.co2science.org/articles/...  “In other words, the beneficial effects of elevated CO2 not only fully compensated for the dry weight loss due to elevated ozone, it completely overcame it as if this stress was never present! And driving this point home, Rao et al. write ‘we did not observe an adverse impact of O3 on the shoot biomass of wheat plants grown under high CO2.’" Massive Corals Can Adapt to End-of-Century CO2 Concentrations  Wall, M., Fietzke, J., Schmidt, G.M., Fink, A., Hofmann, L.C., de Beer, D. and Fabricius K.E. 2016. Internal pH regulation facilitates in situ long-term acclimation of massive corals to end-of-century carbon dioxide conditions. Scientific Reports 6: 10.1038/srep30688. Dec 6, 2016  http://www.co2science.org/articles/...  [SEPP Comment: Corals adapt to changing pH in natural CO2 seeps – indicating that experiments shocking life in aquariums by suddenly lowering pH are grossly misleading.] How Birds Regulate their Body Temperatures as Climates Warm  Nilsson, J.-A., Molokwu, M.N. and Olsson, O. 2016. Body temperature regulation in hot environments. PLOS ONE 11(8): eO161481.doi:1371/journal.pone.0161481. Dec 5, 2016  http://www.co2science.org/articles/... Models v. Observations New Paper Debunks Ad Hoc ‘Explanation’ That Antarctic Sea Ice Has Been Growing Since ’80s Due To Human Activity  By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Dec 8, 2016  http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/08/... Model Issues CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions  Press Release by Matthew Chalmers, CERN, Oct 28, 2016 [H/t Australian Climate Skeptics]  https://home.cern/about/updates/201... Measurement Issues -- Surface Despite Denial, Global Temperatures Are Dropping Fast  By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Dec 5, 2016  http://www.thegwpf.com/despite-deni... November 2016 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update  By Bob Tisdale, Climate Observations, Dec 6, 2016 [H/t GWPF]  https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/20...  [SEPP Question: A gradual increase in sea surface temperatures, with lots of noise. Is the increase due to gradual warming or change in measurement techniques such as location of instruments?] Changing Weather Historic December cold and Lake-effect snows coming  By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, ICECAP, Dec 7, 2016  http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-a... Changing Seas 3 New Papers: Global Seas Now Rising About 2 Inches Per Century … Claims Of 1 Meter Rise By 2100 ‘Sheer Nonsense’  By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Dec 5, 2016  http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/05/...  [SEPP Comment: The most widely cited estimate suffers from the same problems many alarmist papers do, long-term projections from short-term trends, which may be from local conditions.] Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice An El Niño year late start to freeze-up on Hudson Bay: bears gearing up to hunt

All the "physical and math proof" needed that the "gravito/thermal greenhouse" and Coriolois Forces, rel humidity, & atmospheric heat capacity P/T ratio is local & total -g/Cp LTE doing continuous @Work on atmosphere to establish the "GHE"

IMHO all the "math & visual information" necessary to completely understand why there is only a "true" gravito/thermal GHE, and why that gravito/thermal GHE and Arrhenius "radiative GHE" are just the dichotomy of Y/N ways anyone can rightly use to discuss "the GHE" as a "local and total thermo/dynamic equilibrium, which is what the "GHE" really is"

If anyone has any Q/Point to ask the Hockey Schtick el al re the graphic or my description of the graphic below, please do so in the comments below. Thank you. 

All the "physical and math proof" needed that the "gravito/thermal greenhouse" and Coriolois Forces, rel humidity, & atmospheric heat capacity P/T ratio is local & total -g/Cp LTE doing continuous @Work on atmosphere to establish the "GHE"

IMHO all the "math & visual information" necessary to completely understand why there is only a "true" gravito/thermal GHE, and why that gravito/thermal GHE and Arrhenius "radiative GHE" are just the dichotomy of Y/N ways anyone can rightly use to discuss "the GHE" as a "local and total thermo/dynamic equilibrium, which is what the "GHE" really is"

New paper demonstrates a large gravito-thermal greenhouse effect on Earth

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters confirms the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect in Earth's atmosphere using a computer model of the lower-mass early Earth atmosphere compared to the higher-mass present day atmosphere. 

According to the authors, 

Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming.

The authors find, 

"The convective fluxes may decrease with increasing surface pressure due to an increase of the moist adiabatic lapse rate and therefore an increase of the near surface temperature [Goldblatt et al 2009] 

Increased atmospheric mass, which decreases low-latitude radiative warming and high-latitude cooling, tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient and this may ... trap heat at the surface."

According to the authors, a doubling of surface pressure causes a large surface temperature warming of 15C after all feedbacks. 

The authors conclude,

An increase in atmospheric mass causes an increase in near-surface temperatures and a decrease of the equator-pole near-surface temperature gradient. Warming is caused mostly by the increase in atmospheric heat capacity, which decrease the net radiative cooling of the atmosphere. 

Thus, the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect has been modelled to cause a ~15C surface warming per doubling of atmospheric pressure on Earth. This is compared to a ~3C surface warming per doubled CO2 according to the [faulty] IPCC models. 

The ~33C gravito-thermal greenhouse effect on Earth leaves no room for an additional 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse effect, thus ruling out any significant greenhouse effect from increased CO2. 

The thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on early Earth's temperature

Observations suggest that Earth's early atmospheric mass differed from the present day. The effects of a different atmospheric mass on radiative forcing have been investigated in climate models of variable sophistication, but a mechanistic understanding of the thermodynamic component of the effect of atmospheric mass on early climate is missing. Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.

New Scaffeta paper finds planetary resonance drives cosmic rays & climate change

A new paper by Dr. Nicola Scafetta et al published in Earth Science Reviews finds an astronomical origin of the ~2100-2500 year Hallstatt cycle found in "cosmogenic radioisotopes  (¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be) and in paleoclimate records throughout the Holocene."

The authors,

"show strong evidences for an astronomical origin of this cycle. Namely, this oscillation is coherent to a repeating pattern in the periodic revolution of the planets around the Sun: the major stable resonance involving the four Jovian planets - Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune - which has a period of about p = 2318 years. Inspired by the Milanković’s theory of an astronomical origin of the glacial cycles, we test whether the Hallstatt cycle could derive from the rhythmic variation of the circularity of the solar system disk assuming that this dynamics could eventually modulate the solar wind and, consequently, the incoming cosmic ray flux and/or the interplanetary/cosmic dust concentration around the Earth-Moon system."

According to the authors,

"the rhythmic contraction and expansion of the solar system driven by a major resonance involving the movements of the four Jovian planets appear to work as a gravitational/electromagnetic pump that increases and decreases the cosmic ray and dust densities inside the inner region of the solar system, which then modulate both the radionucleotide production and climate change by means of a cloud/albedo modulation."

On the astronomical origin of the Hallstatt oscillation found in radiocarbon and climate records throughout the Holocene

• Nicola Scafetta^a, , , 
• Franco Milani^b, 
• Antonio Bianchini^c, d, 
• Sergio Ortolani

Abstract

An oscillation with a period of about 2100–2500 years, the Hallstatt cycle, is  found in cosmogenic radioisotopes (¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be) and in paleoclimate records throughout the Holocene. This oscillation is typically associated with solar variations, but its primary physical origin remains uncertain. Herein we show strong evidences for an astronomical origin of this cycle. Namely, this oscillation is coherent to a repeating pattern in the periodic revolution of the planets around the Sun: the major stable resonance involving the four Jovian planets - Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune - which has a period of about p = 2318 years. Inspired by the Milanković’s theory of an astronomical origin of the glacial cycles, we test whether the Hallstatt cycle could derive from the rhythmic variation of the circularity of the solar system disk assuming that this dynamics could eventually modulate the solar wind and, consequently, the incoming cosmic ray flux and/or the interplanetary/cosmic dust concentration around the Earth-Moon system. The orbit of the planetary mass center (PMC) relative to the Sun is used as a proxy. We analyzed how the instantaneous eccentricity vector of this virtual orbit varies from 13,000 BCE to 17,000 CE. We found that it undergoes a kind of pulsations and clearly presents rhythmic contraction and expansion patterns with a 2318 year period together with a number of already known faster oscillations associated to the planetary orbital stable resonances. There exists a quasi π/2 phase shift between the 2100–2500 year oscillation found in the ¹⁴C record and that of the calculated eccentricity function. Namely, at the Hallstatt-cycle time scale, a larger production of radionucleotide particles occurs while the Sun-PMC orbit evolves from more elliptical shapes (e ≈ 0.598) to more circular ones (e ≈ 0.590), that is while the orbital system is slowly imploding or bursting inward; a smaller production of radionucleotide particles occurs while the Sun-PMC orbit evolves from more circular shapes (e ≈ 0.590) to a more elliptical ones (e ≈ 0.598), that is while the orbital system is slowly exploding or bursting outward. Since at this timescale the PMC eccentricity variation is relatively small (e = 0.594 ± 0.004), the physical origin of the astronomical 2318 year cycle is better identified and distinguished from faster orbital oscillations by the times it takes the PMC to make pericycles and epicycles around the Sun and the times it takes to move from minimum to maximum distance from the Sun within those arcs. These particular proxies reveal a macroscopic 2318 year period oscillation, together with other three stable outer planet orbital resonances with periods of 159, 171 and 185 years. This 2318 year oscillation is found to be spectrally coherent with the Δ¹⁴C Holocene record with a statistical confidence above 95%, as determined by spectral analysis and cross wavelet and wavelet coherence analysis. At the Hallstatt time scale, maxima of the radionucleotide production occurred when, within each pericycle-apocycle orbital arc, the time required by the PMC to move from the minimum to the maximum distance from the Sun varies from about 8 to 16 years while the time required by the same to move from the maximum to the minimum distance from the Sun varies from about 7 to 14 years, and vice versa. Thus, we found that a fast expansion of the Sun-PMC orbit followed by a slow contraction appears to prevent cosmic rays to enter within the system inner region while a slow expansion followed by a fast contraction favors it. Similarly, the same dynamics could modulate the amount of interplanetary/cosmic dust falling on Earth. Indeed, many other stable orbital resonance frequencies (e.g. at periods of 20 years, 45 years, 60 years, 85 years, 159–171–185 years) are found in radionucleotide, solar, aurora and climate records, as determined in the scientific literature. Thus, the result supports a planetary theory of solar and/or climate variation that has recently received a renewed attention. In our particular case, the rhythmic contraction and expansion of the solar system driven by a major resonance involving the movements of the four Jovian planets appear to work as a gravitational/electromagnetic pump that increases and decreases the cosmic ray and dust densities inside the inner region of the solar system, which then modulate both the radionucleotide production and climate change by means of a cloud/albedo modulation.