A new paper has been published questioning the Apocalyptic climate narrative (1 Viewer)

[Lord of Planar]

CO2 is currently low and has no effct on climate because green plants convert it to O2 and that ability increases exponentially.

This is uncertain. I believe that CO2 still causes warming, but so small it isn't relevant.

The sun creates climate let me know when you can control that. Climate change is a gig used as an excuse to expand government cnd control our lives. Not one dire prediction has ever come true so they move the goalposts every 10 years.

The sun's variations can account for about half of the assumed warming if we take the average of TSI studies that show changes since 1700. the average of TSI studies has the change just over 0.2% of an increase. With the feedback response of the greenhouse effect, this change creates greater than 1 W/m^2 of warming into today. The IPCC low balls this from cherry picked studies that have small changes. Not only does the IPCC use less than 1/3rd the change of study averages, they do not acknowledge tithe the thermal inertia of the oceans that they have to go back past 1713 to have a valid baseline. Not 1750. Then on top of that, the IPCC only calculates the solar "direct effect" and not the heat increased through the greenhouse effect. Instead, they falsely attribute the solar feedback to greenhouse gasses.

The IPCC is unscrupulous then their agenda.

Using the accepted earth energy budget, and the stated change at the TOA for a doubling, the surface warming only calculates to 0.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2. This is using the IPCC's own material. They like to pretend there is a huge feedback that will take the CO2 warming to rather high levels. This is impossible.

If there really was a greater than unity feedback to CO2, then we would go into a thermal runaway condition, and end up like Venus. But if this natural feedback were real without a hard limit, this would have occurred before we could ever stand erect.

If such a feedback exists, there has to be a maximum amplification from greenhouse gasses, and that means we would be at the maximum, with other factors modulating the temperatures.

 

[longview]

Oh the fossil fuel industry is already in control of that. They're pumping 40+ billion tons of polluting emissions, annually, into our air and admitting that it is changing climate. What they don't want to admit is that the particulate matter from the burning of their products is killing people with lung diseases by the thousands.

Coal burning is what kills people and pollutes the air, liquid hydrocarbon fuels, not so much.

 

[Threegoofs]

One of the Authors Judith Curry is one of the foremost climate scientist in the world.

I’ve never seen a foremost climate scientist publish in the “Journal of Applied Corporate Finance” !

 

[Threegoofs]

Don't you dare question the prophecy, if you didn't buy every bit of the impending doom you are facing you are a heretic/ denier.

You mean the prophecy that said atmospheric CO2 will rise and temperatures will rise with it, which was predicted over a century ago, and quantified about 50 years ago, and all of that ‘prophecy’ (global temp rise, especially land temps in the northern hemisphere at about 1.5 degrees C in the 2020s, sea level rise, arctic melting, habitat disruption, climate zones moving north, etc etc) has pretty much proven to be spot on?

 

[longview]

I’ve never seen a foremost climate scientist publish in the “Journal of Applied Corporate Finance” !

It is an article about risks.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I’ve never seen a foremost climate scientist publish in the “Journal of Applied Corporate Finance” !

this depends much of who pays for a study. Right?

Over 200:1, and probably now over 500:1 of the grant money regarding these sciences are to show AGW. Very little money is given to show it is false.

 

[Threegoofs]

this depends much of who pays for a study. Right?

Over 200:1, and probably now over 500:1 of the grant money regarding these sciences are to show AGW. Very little money is given to show it is false.

What? No.

This isnt in any way a 'study'. Its an opinion piece from a consultant who makes money denying climate change.

At least Curry is making a living off of it. Not sure what your angle is.

 

[Lord of Planar]

At least Curry is making a living off of it. Not sure what your angle is.

Yes, but her money comes from being honest about it. Her business has now operated for years after she retired from academia. She retired in 2017, and before her retirement authored over 170 climate papers.

 

[Germinator]

A critique of the apocalyptic climate narrative

But the title says paper. I expected a study, not an opinion.

I’ve never seen a foremost climate scientist publish in the “Journal of Applied Corporate Finance” !

Ever since seeing first hand what happens when there is money AND corporate interests involved, I pull out my rubber stamp,...

 

[Mr Person]

In giant bold all caps from your link:

IS GLOBAL WARMING DANGEROUS?​

From my ever increasing file:

1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn't any Climate Crisis.

You actually think that non-deniers give so much as a wet fart about your denier "file"?

Just like flat-Earthers, "the moon landing is fake"-ers, anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, all denierism is about is trying to feel special to compensate for some other negative emotion. There's no way any of you actually believe that you can read some blogs and Trump an established science with "common sense"

 

[Steve Case]

You actually think that non-deniers give so much as a wet fart about your denier "file"?

Just like flat-Earthers, "the moon landing is fake"-ers, anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, all denierism is about is trying to feel special to compensate for some other negative emotion. There's no way any of you actually believe that you can read some blogs and Trump an established science with "common sense"

And I don't much care for you and the horse you ride on.

 

[longview]

Ever since seeing first hand what happens when there is money AND corporate interests involved, I pull out my rubber stamp,...

View attachment 67570064

We should all look at and evaluate catastrophic claims!

 

[Threegoofs]

We should all look at and evaluate catastrophic claims!

Which denier blog did you crib this article from?

Because we all know you dont read the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance.

But you consistently have denied getting your informaation from blogs - so where did you pull this PoS article from?

 

[Pound4abrown]

Have you read any of her peer reviewed studies?
Forget what people like cook say at skeptical science, Curry is an actual scientist as opposed to a cartoonist.

So we should do what you are doing, and throw out all the bad for the one good?
Yeah. Pass.

 

[longview]

You actually think that non-deniers give so much as a wet fart about your denier "file"?

Just like flat-Earthers, "the moon landing is fake"-ers, anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, all denierism is about is trying to feel special to compensate for some other negative emotion. There's no way any of you actually believe that you can read some blogs and Trump an established science with "common sense"

There is a large difference between flat earthers and someone being skeptical about people using and untested hypothesis to create policies.
Words cannot erase the fact that there is no empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.
Had you read any of DR. Curry’s scientific studies you would know her findings are NOT that human activity doesn’t cause climate change, but that the sensitivity of added CO2 is on the low end of the range. After that she became a climate heretic.

 

[longview]

Which denier blog did you crib this article from?

Because we all know you dont read the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance.

But you consistently have denied getting your informaation from blogs - so where did you pull this PoS article from?

I followed a link from Climate etc, but the article has value.

 

[longview]

So we should do what you are doing, and throw out all the bad for the one good?
Yeah. Pass.

Not at all, we should all be skeptical of extraordinary claims.
Take for example the claim that 2XCO2 would cause 3C of warming.
On NASA Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect, they say that Earth is 33C warmer than it should be,
and of that 33C, CO2 accounts for 20% or 6.6C. If one counts up in doublings from 1ppm to
the 280 ppm when they came up with the 33C, you get 8.09 doublings, or 0.81 C per doubling.
It is safe to say that the CO2 that has been around for millions of years is fully equalized.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ever since seeing first hand what happens when there is money AND corporate interests involved, I pull out my rubber stamp,...

View attachment 67570064

There are corporate interests on both sides.

 

[longview]

There are corporate interests on both sides.

I agree, everyone thinks the oil companies would push back against the idea of Human caused climate change,
but the reality is they see it as an opportunity to put some of their competition out of business, and perhaps
purchase their assets for pennies on the dollar.

 

[CLAX1911]

I agree, everyone thinks the oil companies would push back against the idea of Human caused climate change,
but the reality is they see it as an opportunity to put some of their competition out of business, and perhaps
purchase their assets for pennies on the dollar.

Or just pretend they have the clean fuel

 

[longview]

Or just pretend they have the clean fuel

Oh they have clean fuel, but it is waiting until the market conditions make it the most profitable fuel.
Oil will keep going up in price for many different reasons, when the cost of good sold of the oil exceeds the
cost to make the feedstock from atmospheric components, the refineries will follow the profits.

 

[CLAX1911]

Oh they have clean fuel, but it is waiting until the market conditions make it the most profitable fuel.

Just slapping a clean label on regular fuel.

Oil will keep going up in price for many different reasons, when the cost of good sold of the oil exceeds the
cost to make the feedstock from atmospheric components, the refineries will follow the profits.

 

[longview]

Just slapping a clean label on regular fuel.

No, as oil supplies become more expensive, there will come a time when
it is less expensive to combine hydrogen extracted from water with carbon harvested from the atmosphere or ocean,
into finished fuel products. Hydrocarbon fuels just happen to be what nature evolved as the best way to store energy.
Concentrated sunshine!
If you have read any of Dr. Heather Willauer work out of the Naval Research labs,
This low-cost catalyst helps turn seawater into fuel at scale
there are some interesting results. One is that artificially assembling hydrocarbon molecules greatly
reduces the variation of those molecules, resulting in only 100 octane fuels.

 

[Volunteer]

Oh they have clean fuel.

Yes, they do.

We all have clean fuel. We just need to use it more.

 

[longview]

Yes, they do.

We all have clean fuel. We just need to use it more.

It is not yet economically viable, and using it would not change the trajectory of the climate.