Global Warming My Arse

But the radiation impacting the earth is a function predominately of the flux, not the luminosity.

 

The lower troposphere has warmed about 1.0C since 1960. And that's only the transient climate response. We still have to wait 30-40 years before the heat flux processes between the ocean and air achieve equilibrium.

This is with ln(400/280) = 0.33 units of forcing. A doubling of CO2 yields ln(560/280) = 0.69 units of forcing. So we have only achieved 47% of the forcing. Just on observational evidence alone and without even invoking any tuning parameters this yields a final transient climate response of 1.0 / 0.47 = 2.1C.

And again, this is just the transient climate response. TCR is estimated to be 80% of ECR so conservatively a TCR of 2.1 yields an ECR of 2.6C of sensitivity.

I don't understand how the IPCC comes up with 1.5C for the lower bound. And I'm not alone. Pretty much every scientist is scratching their head on that right now. Even outspoken full blown skeptics like Judith Curry don't even go that low. Though, she does come close.

 

No statement of fact. But you knew that.

 

You said the skeptical scientists are supported by vested interests (ad hominem) as if the believers were supported only by.......... whom?????

 

Since you don't have a moment's consideration for anything other than what you want to hear, why would I think you know anything about anything else?

Nothing gets done when people close their minds, and assume that everybody that sees thing differently than they do is a fool; that they are the benchmark of wisdom.

All of history is full of people who thought that way- and are responsible for the painfully slow progress not just of knowledge, but of understanding. There is 20 times the level of bull-headed ignorance among people today compared to 50 years ago, because we have failed to teach people how to use their minds.

As my footnote reads- The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.

It is not enough to have IQ, and it is not enough to have education.
One can come to believe those things are proof they are wise- when actually, as one old friend put it- "They let their booklearnin' get in the way of their education" and with all their confidence, still not understand even what they think they know at all.

Anytime somebody is totally adamant on a point as complex as this, there is no question that they have closed the door on their own mind, and have abandoned critical thinking if they ever had it. Nothing anyone can do to change that.

 

That's a double edge sword that cuts both ways you know. The confidence and arrogance among skeptics/deniers who think they're smarter than the worlds leading experts is astounding to me. You see when most people come to a conclusion that contradicts the consensus they make every attempt possible to eliminate their own mistakes and failures often times to the point obsession. Not so with many skeptics/deniers. Their strategy is to throw as many doubt darts at the board in rapid succession in the hopes that one will stick long enough to bottleneck progress. Once the darts are all exhausted they just start over and rethrow them again and again. Their hubris won't let them admit mistakes ever.

 

I don't believe climatologists are going to abandon their progress in their science in order to become engineers and politicians.

I strongly suspect they will continue to work toward a more thorough understanding of climate - like they studied for years to become good at doing.

Today, America says we don't know enough to justify any effort. The best science could do would be to form an even stronger argument.

 

Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it? You quote my posts but your comments following take off on tangents. Engineers? Politicians? Wouldn’t it be sensible for say a scientist who’s an expert in ocean acidification to focus on ways to mitigate it instead of just monitoring it and pontificating about it? I mean it is his kids and grandkids lives at stake, right?

What would constitute a stronger argument? It’s already iron clad, no? Settled science. Unimpeachable integrity of a consensus of scientists. Thousands of studies. Tens of thousands of pages of documentation. There isn’t time to lose, remember? We must act now....

 

Actually it went way the hell under my head, as it is hopelessly retarded.

For there to be a lapse in danger, there has to be danger to begin with - of which there is no global sign comparable to a slight fever, never mind a heart attack.

 

Denial or deflection. I'm betting on the latter.

 

I thought at first that you were just describing liberal logic.

It does work both ways, but this is not a battle between wise men and fools that can be identified and separated by the number of degrees they hold. As I see it, there are many facets to be considered, and they are not all on the data sheets.

Data factors, provided they are collected and sorted properly, provide a basis to start with. I have no problem with the aspect of global warming existing, good data shows it.
However, data is used to draw conclusions- and those are usually speculative to some degree. Solutions that follow are far more speculative.

What data that would be relevant is NOT part of the collection? Is NOT part of the process distilling the data to a conclusion? We don't know. We have considered what we think is relevant, and thereby structured the process toward a target. Now many scientists are happy to think they have considered everything relevant. The skeptics among them remember that you don't know what you don't know, and that is what usually leads to errors in your equation and failures in your solution.

The idea that we have recognized and considered everything is always a mistake, because we are always working with a fraction of the total knowledge about most things. We draw conclusions from what we think we know, and use that to construct a picture of everything. Very much like being finding a few parts of a 1,000 piece puzzle and announcing you have seen the picture. It is not what we know with good cause that gets us in trouble- it what we miss, or what we conclude on limited knowledge.

The solutions to a perceived problem are more difficult to construct, because all of that process is speculation- drawn from the perception of the data conclusion.
We have solved a great number of problems over the course of human history with the advantage of creative intelligence. At the same time- the solutions we have used to do this nearly always had consequences we did not foresee, and created more and sometimes larger problems. The core of the global warming argument of today is that OUR prior decisions to solve human problems and improve the quality of life by creating cars, power plants, industrial process and such- is the cause of the problem we have now. We must now solve the problem that only exists because we solved a prior problem. In other words, we failed to see and consider factors at the time that all this was being created. Are the wise men now so foolish as to think that today's solution to the unforeseen problems created by yesterdays solution will not create new and unforeseen problems? Of course they are. That is always the case, isn't it?

Our long list of problems solved and the list of problems created by those solutions are about the same size- and as a result, the conditions of the world are different, because our solutions did more damage than the problems they solved. The world is dramatically changed by us, and usually in ugly ways despite what we think are good intentions. If nature and other creatures had voice, it would say that the only species on the face of the earth that thinks humans make wise decisions are humans. After all, we invented the idea of fixing was wasn't broken in the first place. When that fix brings new problems, we simply double down. Today, we again insist we fully understand the problem, and rush to impose solutions. Doubling down again.

We are not the cure- we are the disease. We know that because while symptoms change, they increase rather than diminish as a result of what we do.
Be skeptical and cautious, because that is the only wise path. Our track record is littered with the debris of destruction we have created with our wisdom- not the monuments to our perfection.

 

The best scientific assessment remains ominous.

The ideological crackpots remain in denial.

 

Tom Styers, but who cares... right?

 

Again, citing this study only highlights the issues with the study. For starters, it overstates the estimates of the most aggressive UNIPCC conclusions. And most scientists have evaluated the IPCC conclusions as being oversold or otherwise unlikely to occur. To put stock in a report that surmises that they believe the resulting change is then a doubling of the most aggressive UN IPCC conclusions is, frankly, ridiculous. Thinking that having consumed the time of more than 1000 US GOV employees, contracted scientific resources (300) and the consumption of more than 1 MILLION man hours of labor...that the result of their conclusion is that they discount the UNIPCC conclusions and conclude that the future result is an additional 15F to the AVERAGE global surface temps is, well, a super great example of group think that intends to leave a mark. And I assure you they have. As in, entirely unsupported within the vast community of science folks, including the most orthodox AGW members.

So ask what is the purpose of publishing this assessment? If your this administration, you publish it because it so remarkably demonstrates exactly that most of those who challenge anthropogenic causation have been right about how the group think in AGW works.

 

Clearly, you do not like the global scientific consensus.

Source: Figure 1, FAQ 2.1, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), Chapter 2
Values in the figure for the past several decades are direct measurements of atmospheric composition. Earlier values are from ice-core analyses.​

The ideologues who are in denial of the science are a a localized curiosity.

They merit study as well: https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/10305

 

Seems to me that I am,. So many folks criticizing the interagency report these days... So many.... Could it become a consensus? Is that what you want?

 

Maybe you could call it "open minded" on a political forum, but in science I'd call it: "obfuscation."

 

I have come to accept that there are some ideologues in the US who are unable to accept the global scientific consensus.

 

If the American public thought the science of anthropogenic warming was settled, we would be doing something about it on a national level. And, while climatologist do agree that humans are the major contributor, there are natural systems that we should want to be better understood - as seen by error bars, questions about affect on extreme weather events, questions about specific regions, etc.

I mention politics and engineering as those are the major elements in humans taking action.

 

It was put out the Friday after Thanksgiving to have assurance it would be the #1 story. It was published to try to put Trump in a hot corner -- never works but they keep trying, like the proverbial ram butting the dam.

 

Wow, dude.

It was put out the Friday after for all the opposite reasons...

 

Didn't the White House authorize its release?

 

that must be very uncomfortable for you

 

I don't know, but probably not.

 

And why "probably not?"