Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[Crick]

Only 1/4 to 1/3 of the associated warming in the IPCC models is attributed to CO2. The other 2/3 to 3/4 are from feedbacks (water vapor, cloud formation and precipitation) that they pile on which are highly controversial. You probably don't know this because the IPCC doesn't allow dissenting opinions in their reports.

The fact that you don't know this and have such strong opinions is astonishing.

If the IPCC didn't allow dissenting opinions why do they rate their conclusions on Confidence and Likelihood. Without dissent, they'd all be certainties.

From Pg 38 of the AR6 Technical Summary

1) Confidence1 is a qualitative measure of the validity of a finding,
based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence
(e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert
judgment) and the degree of agreement.
2) Likelihood2 provides a quantified measure of confidence in
a finding expressed probabilistically (e.g., based on statistical
analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert
judgement by the author team or from a formal quantitative
survey of expert views, or both).
Where there is sufficient scientific confidence, findings can also be
formulated as statements of fact without uncertainty qualifiers.
Throughout IPCC reports, the calibrated language is clearly identified
by being typeset in italics.

 

[alang1216]

I do but fossil fuels are portable and have a high energy density and don't need an electrical grid system.

Is an electrical grid system more expensive than a pipeline or road network capable of transporting those fossil fuels?

So I do know this and I know that third world countries need tried and true technology with a high energy density to power a myriad of machines that run on fossil fuels such as diesel, gasoline or propane.

It would also be nice if they didn't have to import that energy.

 

[alang1216]

It's not what you say that tells what you believe, it's what you do. And you argue against using fossil fuels.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

 

[ding]

If the IPCC didn't allow dissenting opinions why do they rate their conclusions on Confidence and Likelihood. Without dissent, they'd all be certainties.

From Pg 38 of the AR6 Technical Summary

1) Confidence1 is a qualitative measure of the validity of a finding,
based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence
(e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert
judgment) and the degree of agreement.
2) Likelihood2 provides a quantified measure of confidence in
a finding expressed probabilistically (e.g., based on statistical
analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert
judgement by the author team or from a formal quantitative
survey of expert views, or both).
Where there is sufficient scientific confidence, findings can also be
formulated as statements of fact without uncertainty qualifiers.
Throughout IPCC reports, the calibrated language is clearly identified
by being typeset in italics.

Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in the various IPCC statements because of three reasons:

1. Climate change and solar variability are both multifaceted concepts. As Pittock (1983) noted, historically, many of the studies of Sun/climate relationships have provided results that are ambiguous and open to interpretation in either way (Pittock 1983).
2. Dissenting scientific results which might potentially interfere with political goals are unwelcome.
3. The primary goal of the IPCC is to “speak with one voice for climate science” (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019).

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

Is an electrical grid system more expensive than a pipeline or road network capable of transporting those fossil fuels?


It would also be nice if they didn't have to import that energy.

You don't need pipelines. Just tanker trucks. But if you want to argue putting in electrical generating and distribution systems is faster to accomplish be my guest.

 

[ding]

It would also be nice if they didn't have to import that energy.

Sure but if Bob wants to plant a big crop I don't think he will give a shit about that. He just needs the machinery to farm at scale so they don't have to import food.

 

[jc456]

I really don't care if sea levels are rising due to CO2, thermal expansion, or Big Foot. All that matters is that they are rising, as are global temperatures.

And money will fix it?

 

[ding]

What does one thing have to do with the other?

You mean it wasn't obvious?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't see that the two are related, so 0.

The lighter cars needed to meet higher MPG standards are more dangerous.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is an electrical grid system more expensive than a pipeline or road network capable of transporting those fossil fuels?


It would also be nice if they didn't have to import that energy.

I agree, we should assist those poor countries to exploit their own reserves of fossil fuels.

 

[alang1216]

If that were truly the case, the previous interglacial period wouldn't have been 2C warmer with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.

Was CO2 the only factor in the ice ages?

 

[ding]

Was CO2 the only factor in the ice ages?

Is it the only factor today?

But that was an interglacial period, like today. And it was warmer with less CO2. If CO2 drives the planet's climate then why isn't it warmer today with 120 ppm MORE atmospheric CO2?

 

[alang1216]

Is it the only factor today?

But that was an interglacial period, like today. And it was warmer with less CO2. If CO2 drives the planet's climate then why isn't it warmer today with 120 ppm MORE atmospheric CO2?

I doubt there is a single factor:

• The Role of the Sun in Climate Change
• A new study bolsters the idea that the uplift of the Himalayas and Andes that began tens of millions of years ago helped trigger the ice ages that followed.
• Coincidence:

 

[ding]

I doubt there is a single factor:

• The Role of the Sun in Climate Change
• A new study bolsters the idea that the uplift of the Himalayas and Andes that began tens of millions of years ago helped trigger the ice ages that followed.
• Coincidence:

That still doesn't answer the question. Why isn't it hotter now with more CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

[ding]

I doubt there is a single factor:

• The Role of the Sun in Climate Change
• A new study bolsters the idea that the uplift of the Himalayas and Andes that began tens of millions of years ago helped trigger the ice ages that followed.
• Coincidence:

The Himalayans were only one cause of transitioning to an icehouse world. Others (and more important) are plate tectonics thermally isolating the polar regions from warm marine currents which lowered the temperature threshold for extensive glaciation at each pole with each pole having very different glaciation characteristics because of their landmass distribution and resulting ocean circulations and orbital forcing which triggers glacial periods when temperature is close to the thresholds. You can see this on the oxygen isotope curve.

But none of this has anything to do with comparing the last to interglacial periods of which disproves CO2 driving the planet's temperature.

 

[alang1216]

That still doesn't answer the question. Why isn't it hotter now with more CO2 in the atmosphere?

Because CO2 is not the only factor involved? You're obviously asking the wrong person.

 

[alang1216]

The Himalayans were only one cause of transitioning to an icehouse world. Others (and more important) are plate tectonics thermally isolating the polar regions from warm marine currents which lowered the temperature threshold for extensive glaciation at each pole with each pole having very different glaciation characteristics because of their landmass distribution and resulting ocean circulations and orbital forcing which triggers glacial periods when temperature is close to the thresholds. You can see this on the oxygen isotope curve.

But none of this has anything to do with comparing the last to interglacial periods of which disproves CO2 driving the planet's temperature.

You may or may not be right but I think we can agree that most climatologists would disagree. If I had to choose between the scientists and you, I'm sorry but...

 

[ding]

Because CO2 is not the only factor involved? You're obviously asking the wrong person.

But it is today, right?

 

[ding]

You may or may not be right but I think we can agree that most climatologists would disagree. If I had to choose between the scientists and you, I'm sorry but...

What would they disagree with? Nothing I wrote there is controversial. So, no, I don't believe we can agree on that and besides I'm not even sure you can disagree with that because you already admitted you don't know.

 

[alang1216]

But it is today, right?

There have been climate cycles since the Earth was born and there have been many factors involved. Why would you suppose that only one was at work today?