A new paper has been published questioning the Apocalyptic climate narrative

[multivita-man]

A critique of the apocalyptic climate narrative

It's not a scientific paper.

 

[longview]

It's not a scientific paper.

No! It is an article about risk from a scientific perspective!

 

[multivita-man]

No! It is an article about risk from a scientific perspective!

Authors:

Harry DeAngelo: Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

Oh, wait, co-signed by: Judith Curry, who is basically not taken very seriously in the scientific community.

 

[longview]

Authors:

Harry DeAngelo: Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

Oh, wait, co-signed by: Judith Curry, who is basically not taken very seriously in the scientific community.

Believe as you will but Judith Curry is a real scientist!

 

[CLAX1911]

Authors:

Harry DeAngelo: Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

Oh, wait, co-signed by: Judith Curry, who is basically not taken very seriously in the scientific community.

So she is a heretic? Most people who are correct are.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Authors:

Harry DeAngelo: Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

Oh, wait, co-signed by: Judith Curry, who is basically not taken very seriously in the scientific community.

Curry is taken serious by other scientists. That is why the cult tries to discredit her and you are a nice puppet when you follow their orders.

 

[multivita-man]

Curry is taken serious by other scientists. That is why the cult tries to discredit her and you are a nice puppet when you follow their orders.

I doubt it, and that's not a scientific paper.

 

[multivita-man]

So she is a heretic? Most people who are correct are.

Show me her scientific work and we can go from there.

 

[multivita-man]

Believe as you will but Judith Curry is a real scientist!

That's still not a scientific paper.

 

[longview]

That's still not a scientific paper.

I know this but the data in it is real, and shows the realistic risks posed from Human caused climate.
We have too much alarmism!

 

[longview]

I doubt it, and that's not a scientific paper.

But Curry does have plenty of Peer reviewed Published papers, and is even cited by the IPCC,
Sorry but Judith Curry is a real climate scientist, her findings tend to be lower than the narrative allows.
Let's play with some numbers for a bit?
Lewis Curry 2015

Using infilled, globally complete temperature data give slightly higher estimates: a median of 1.66 K for ECS (5%–95% range: 1.15–2.7 K)
and 1.33 K for TCR (5%–95% range: 1.0–1.9 K).

Now the simulations that seem to accurately track past warming are TCR, so 2XCO2 = 1.33C of warming.
1.33/ln(2) = 1.92, so if by year 2100 CO2 levels are say 620 ppm, then the hypothesized additional warming
we should see would be 1.92 X ln(620/425) = 0.73C, or about the same type of warming we and our grandparents lived through!

 

[CaughtInThe]

I don't think that the "Animal House" generations ("Let's just trash the place") care if they screw their own kids/grandkids.

They'd rather just do their own thing now and not care about the consequences for their offspring/future generations. Which is what they do on pretty much everything else so it makes complete sense.

 

[longview]

I don't think that the "Animal House" generations ("Let's just trash the place") care if they screw their own kids/grandkids.

They'd rather just do their own thing now and not care about the consequences for their offspring/future generations. Which is what they do on pretty much everything else so it makes complete sense.

It's not that at all! The greater harm to our kids and grandkids would be allowing the lie to continue,
to lead people to believe that we can control the climate if only we limit our use of hydrocarbon fuels.
Oil and Natural gas are not sustainable, and because the oil companies like profits, they already
have a replacement for using oil as a feedstock to make transport fuels.
They know what the cost of goods sold of the new fuel is, and oil is currently more profitable,
but it will not always remain so.
When oil gets above a sustained price of about $96 a barrel, it will be more profitable
for modern refineries to make carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels from atmospheric CO2 water and electricity.
The technology is loosely called Power to Liquid.

 

[CaughtInThe]

It's not that at all!

Sure it is. It's just "adults" being irresponsible.

 

[longview]

Sure it is. It's just "adults" being irresponsible.

How so? No changes in legislation allows Humanity to move to sustainable energy without the impact
of draconian cuts to lifestyles.
Also consider the impact of sustainable energy and home made hydrocarbon fuels to the poor of the earth.
A 10,000 Watt Solar array in the tropics could produce a gallon of fuel a day, and provide
lights, running water, refrigeration, etc.

 

[CaughtInThe]

How so?

By trashing our planet for decades and decades.

You not privy to all the lawsuits filed over that time frame??

 

[OrphanSlug]

Harry DeAngelo is not a climate scientist, not even a scientist of any academia, he holds a PhD in Finance and BA in economics. His areas of study and expertise are the politics of finance and economics as well as corporate finance.

While anyone can be critical of climate alarmism, and anyone can use various cherry picked stats to prove some point, none of it directly contradicts what we know of climate change. The critique is about splitting hairs on how we socioeconomically end up impacted by various governmental decisions. None of DeAngelo's comments are all that original in that respect.

What this reads like, and boils down to, is a flip side of the same climate alarmism coin this time being do very little.

 

[longview]

By trashing our planet for decades and decades.

You not privy to all the lawsuits filed over that time frame??

We have limited most of the actual pollution, this is likely part of the reason for our recent warming.
The question around Human caused climate change, is can we change the trajectory of the climate?
The IPCC thinks that added CO2 is the cause, but the reality is that the physics is all wrong for CO2 to be causing the warming.
We are warming because of increased Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR) this is in the shortwave spectrum.
Added CO2 would add energy in the longwave spectrum, but that is not happening.

 

[longview]

Harry DeAngelo is not a climate scientist, not even a scientist of any academia, he holds a PhD in Finance and BA in economics. His areas of study and expertise are the politics of finance and economics as well as corporate finance.

While anyone can be critical of climate alarmism, and anyone can use various cherry picked stats to prove some point, none of it directly contradicts what we know of climate change. The critique is about splitting hairs on how we socioeconomically end up impacted by various governmental decisions. None of DeAngelo's comments are all that original in that respect.

What this reads like, and boils down to, is a flip side of the same climate alarmism coin this time being do very little.

The Co author is Judith Curry who is a climate scientist with over 200 peer reviewed scientific publications.

 

[Threegoofs]

We have limited most of the actual pollution, this is likely part of the reason for our recent warming.
The question around Human caused climate change, is can we change the trajectory of the climate?
The IPCC thinks that added CO2 is the cause, but the reality is that the physics is all wrong for CO2 to be causing the warming.
We are warming because of increased Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR) this is in the shortwave spectrum.
Added CO2 would add energy in the longwave spectrum, but that is not happening.

In conclusion, all those physicists don’t know the physics as well as you.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The Co author is Judith Curry who is a climate scientist with over 200 peer reviewed scientific publications.

I know who she is, and I know why conservatives are clinging to her work too.

 

[longview]

In conclusion, all those physicists don’t know the physics as well as you.

Oh they do, and they also know that added greenhouse gases cannot increase the ASR.

 

[longview]

I know who she is, and I know why conservatives are clinging to her work too.

Judith Curry's research finds that a doubling of the CO2 level would cause
1.5C of warming if they simulate ECS and 1.2C of warming if they simulate TCR.
Lewis Curry 2015
So she is part of the consensus, Human activity is causing warming.
The face is that her findings do not fit the promoted narrative.

 

[Steve Case]

Judith Curry's research finds that a doubling of the CO2 level would cause
1.5C of warming if they simulate ECS and 1.2C of warming if they simulate TCR.
Lewis Curry 2015
So she is part of the consensus, Human activity is causing warming.
The face is that her findings do not fit the promoted narrative.

Pretty much what I've been quoting from Dr. James Hansen:

IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 Page 631 pdf 43

In the idealised situation that the climate response to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform
temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating
(but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting
from the temperature increase), the global warming from
GCMs would be around 1.2°C.

 

[longview]

Pretty much what I've been quoting from Dr. James Hansen:

IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 Page 631 pdf 43

In the idealised situation that the climate response to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform
temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating
(but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting
from the temperature increase), the global warming from
GCMs would be around 1.2°C.

and even that is based on the idea that the added CO2 would cause a perturbation in Earth's longwave energy imbalance!