Should we allow the alarmists to alarm us as to climate?

[ding]

See the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report.

The other day you claimed 5C by the end of the century.

 

[ding]

It is a point at which the world's scientists believe some harms will become severe and potentially irreversible.

Some harms? Potentially? Those sound like weasel words to me.

 

[ding]

Define "feasible". It could be done but it would require a very robust and committed effort.

Something that can be reasonably expected to be ACCOMPLISHED.

 

[ding]

Define "materially". It would improve the climate in this century and would dramatically improve it in the next and the next.

materially: substantially; considerably.

Do you have a link to one of your science god's models that shows that net zero by 2050 would improve the climate in this century and would dramatically improve it in the next and the next?

 

[ding]

Doubts that the fossil fuel industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars extolling in an effort to convince you and others like you that the science behind AGW is flawed without having presented a shred of evidence to support that contention. How much evidence did this article of yours contain supporting any justification for these specific doubts? NONE.

No. Doubts that the GHG effect of CO2 isn't relatively weak. Doubts that almost all warming is due to CO2. Doubts that the geologic record supports these ridiculous conclusions. Doubts that their models aren't skewed for the results they seek. Doubts that their bias and drive for consensus isn't squelching valid challenges to their cult's political agenda.

 

[ding]

Doubts about the reliability of the science

Why?

Because the GHG effect of CO2 is relatively weak. Every doubling of CO2 will yield 1C of surface temperature.

 

[Dagosa]

Once you go ad hominem you lose the debate. Have a pleasant evening.

So I’m spot on. You’re non science rhetoric is a waste of time.

 

[ding]

doubts about the reliability of the climate models

Why?

"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[ding]

doubts about the scientific integrity and policy-neutrality of the IPCC

Why?

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.

 

[Dagosa]

doubts about the scientific integrity and policy-neutrality of the IPCC


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.

Ding Dong

 

[ding]

doubts about the scale of future warming

doubts about the scale of the climate change risks (i.e. doubts about the scale of the possible adverse impacts and the probability of their occurring)

Why?

"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."

"...As mentioned in the previous section climate can also change owing to internal processes within the climate system even without any variations in external forcings (chaos). In the GCMs the source of chaos is the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations. If the initial conditions are not known exactly for a dynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes relations the forecast trajectory will diverge from the actual one, and it is not necessarily the case that small perturbations have small effects. In fact, slightly different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs..."

"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

"...Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[ding]

Ding Dong

 

[ding]

doubts about the wisdom of the 1.5ºC warming ‘threshold’

Why?

Because it is arbitrary, capricious, self serving and not linked to any known climate state from the paleo-climate history.

 

[ding]

It may? Why? And if it is "fast and radical" are you arguing there is no REASON for precipitous action? Cost would have been much less had actions been undertaken earlier. If anyone and anything is to blame for the high cost, it is those who have been doing their damnedest to prevent action from taking place. Finally, we have a variety of carbon-neutral alternatives that are being put into place as we speak.

Because there are many poor regions of the world containing many people whose quality of life would be greatly improved by the use of fossil fuels.

 

[ding]

Your article, however, has presented NO reason for us to actually doubt any of the contentions they have suggested we doubt. NONE.

Actually it did and you have refuted none of it.

 

[ding]

Perhaps, but your author has not demonstrated a single reason to deny ANY of it.

The fact that you said, "perhaps" undermines your position. No one is denying CO2 can't affect temperature. We are denying the magnitude of that effect because it is idiotic to attribute almost all of the warming to CO2. Especially since we know the geologic record is littered with natural warming trends and the present interglacial period is still 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods.

 

[ding]

The fundamental problem with the climate crisis narrative is that it is simplistic and gives us only one side of the story.

Bullshit

 

[Foxfyre]

So I’m spot on. You’re non science rhetoric is a waste of time

Well it's too bad that you reject the scientific method in favor of some unproved dogmatism but have a lovely day any way.

 

[Dagosa]

Well it's too bad that you reject the scientific method in favor of some unproved dogmatism but have a lovely day any way.

I believe you posted what science is. It mimics the scientific method. Deniers are not engaged in it. They post drivel with absolutely NONE of their own experimentation and results posted and commented on and made available to everyone else in their field. MOST of these bozos aren’t even qualified as they are not PRESENTLY working in nor conducting trials and experiments in AGW, let alone ANY climate related activity. So really, you know something different about science you’re hiding ? Let us in on it. NASA routinely publishes climate related research. Anyone Who doesn’t conduct similar trials is unqualified to comment on their veracity.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe you posted what science is. It mimics the scientific method. Deniers are not engaged in it. They post drivel with absolutely NONE of their own experimentation and results posted and commented on and made available to everyone else in their field. MOST of these bozos aren’t even qualified as they are not PRESENTLY working in nor conducting trials and experiments in AGW, let alone ANY climate related activity. So really, you know something different about science you’re hiding ? Let us in on it. NASA routinely publishes climate related research. Anyone Who doesn’t conduct similar trials is unqualified to comment on their veracity.

The trials don't seem to be working as they have yet to present the findings or projections of ANY of their models that have turned out to be correct.

Moving the goal posts on down the road as each prediction comes and goes is not reassuring to people still capable of critical thinking.

In my opinion, allowing only one point of view is not science but dogma. You say I'm not scientific. But an open mind and willingness to see other possibilities, asking questions, looking for other explanations is what science is. Don't confuse process with what science is.