AN ANTI-SCIENCE MANIA TAKES OVER GOP

[longview]

But isn't it clear? The system isn't inherently flawed. Sure there may be isolated cases where malfeasance happens but when you start thinking that the ONLY reason your favorite fringe hypothesis doesn't get more support is because of some nefarious cabal enforcing dogma then you have entered into the same area as Creationists.

Doesn't that seem worrying?

The fact of the matter is we have a world's worth of experts over the space of a century who have zeroed in on a pretty solid hypothesis. There may be some questions around the edges but the core is pretty solid.

The grants from NAS, mostly start with the assumption that AGW is beyond question, but that is incorrect, because the sensitivity of CO2
is not cast in stone somewhere, yet there is limited funding to investigate the sensitivity of CO2.

Again it is not that the hypotheses is not solid, but the sensitivity that is in question.
Model output is not empirical data, unless the observation match the predictions.
The core is simply that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, not that 2XCO2 will cause X amount of warming.

 

[longview]

How has the climate responded in the past to an excess of CO2, and when did that occur?

First off, it is not only how the climate responded to CO2 in the past, but how the climate responded to warming.
Remember the feedbacks are not feedbacks to CO2, but feedbacks to the forcing warming the added CO2 caused.
The climate is incapable of discriminating between sources of warming, so all warming looks like inputs to the feedback.
With this in mind, the feedbacks can be evaluated based on the .258C of pre 1950 warming.
The post 1950 warming per Hadcrut4, HadCrut4 Decade Smoothed , to 2015, is .703C
We have to subtract off from that all other known sources of warming, from that .703C
Forcing from increases in greenhouse gasses(AGGI), 5.35 X ln(485/338) X .3=.579 C
Global brightening,
Wild 2012, Wild 2012, Shows in Table 1 that the total period had both dimming and brightening, but a net of .42C NH,
and .06C SH, or an average of .24 C.
With just those two, .579 + .24 =.819C, we have exceeded the observed warming.
There is no amount left to attribute to positive feedback.

 

[istodolez]

The grants from NAS, mostly start with the assumption that AGW is beyond question

Do you mean NAS or NSF? Either way that's not how granting agency works. Of course they aren't going to fund people who want to investigate the role of magical unicorn urine on global warming, but generally you CANNOT simply wave away why YOUR favorite science's lack of funding as if it is some malfeasance on the part of the granting agencies.

Again it is not that the hypotheses is not solid, but the sensitivity that is in question.

But without that higher sensitivity how do you account for global warming? Remember by your own admission it is HUMAN CAUSED that accounts for the majority of the warming (you said you agree with AGW).

So what is the HUMAN CAUSE of global warming without CO2's higher sensitivity?

Model output is not empirical data, unless the observation match the predictions.

And, of course, you DO realize that hindcasting shows these models to be largely correct, right?

 

[Hamish Howl]

I have never really understood the long-game in the GOP's fight against science and education.

It started with Brown v Board of Education. What else would you need to know?

 

[paul342160]

Watsup, good point. How about hydroponics and fish farming for countries that experience extreme food shortages
__________________________________________________________________
Hydroponics is a type of horticulture and a subset of hydroculture, which is a method of growing plants, usually crops, without soil, by using mineral nutrient solutions in an aqueous solvent. Terrestrial plants may be grown with only their roots exposed to the nutritious liquid, or, in addition, the roots may be physically supported by an inert medium such as perlite, gravel, or other substrates. Despite inert media, roots can cause changes of the rhizosphere pH and root exudates can affect the rhizosphere biology.

Fish farming or pisciculture involves raising fish commercially in tanks or enclosures such as fish ponds, usually for food. It is the principal form of aquaculture, while other methods may fall under maricultur

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Intersting clip about how a toxic mix of corporate funding of climate denier propaganda and libertarian ideology have delayed action on climate change for many decades.

"Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, some American politicians continue to deny that climate change exists, while others question the severity of its impact. But public opinion is shifting, and today even oil and gas companies publicly admit that climate change demands action. So why does climate denialism continue to influence U.S. politics? Here's a look into who is funding the movement, and why denial is mainly a U.S. problem."

 

[longview]

Do you mean NAS or NSF? Either way that's not how granting agency works. Of course they aren't going to fund people who want to investigate the role of magical unicorn urine on global warming, but generally you CANNOT simply wave away why YOUR favorite science's lack of funding as if it is some malfeasance on the part of the granting agencies.



But without that higher sensitivity how do you account for global warming? Remember by your own admission it is HUMAN CAUSED that accounts for the majority of the warming (you said you agree with AGW).

So what is the HUMAN CAUSE of global warming without CO2's higher sensitivity?



And, of course, you DO realize that hindcasting shows these models to be largely correct, right?

Yes NSF, and if you search the RFP's related to climate, they are mostly worded in such a way as to assume that AGW is settled science.

As I have shown, simple greenhouse gas forcing, accounts for almost all of the observed warming,
and what remains, is insufficient to make a claim of high sensitivity.
Look at it another way! The IPCC was nice enough to show all the forcing between 1950 and 2011, IPCC SPM.5,
show the total forcing in 1950 at .57 W m-2 and in 2011 at 2.29 W m-2, a difference of 2.233 W m-2 or .6699C of warming.
IPCC SMP5
The Hadcrut4 decade smoothed has a temperature difference, 1950-2011 of .564C.
HadCrut4 Decade Smoothed
So the observed warming is well within claimed forcing, no need for any amplified feedbacks.

Also, most of the models, do not account for minimal warming in the Southern Hemisphere, Diurnal and seasonal asymmetry,
or the decline is Earth's energy imbalance since 2000.

 

[istodolez]

Yes NSF, and if you search the RFP's related to climate, they are mostly worded in such a way as to assume that AGW is settled science.

Yes, AGW is relatively settled science.

 

[watsup]

Yes, AGW is relatively settled science.

In a macro sense, it is indeed settled science since the very great majority of climate scientists on a worldwide basis are certain that it is the CO2 produced by man's activities that is the primary cause. That does not mean, of course, that there will not be continued research to try to better understand it.

 

[watsup]

Yes NSF, and if you search the RFP's related to climate, they are mostly worded in such a way as to assume that AGW is settled science.

As I have shown, simple greenhouse gas forcing, accounts for almost all of the observed warming,
and what remains, is insufficient to make a claim of high sensitivity.
Look at it another way! The IPCC was nice enough to show all the forcing between 1950 and 2011, IPCC SPM.5,
show the total forcing in 1950 at .57 W m-2 and in 2011 at 2.29 W m-2, a difference of 2.233 W m-2 or .6699C of warming.
IPCC SMP5
The Hadcrut4 decade smoothed has a temperature difference, 1950-2011 of .564C.
HadCrut4 Decade Smoothed
So the observed warming is well within claimed forcing, no need for any amplified feedbacks.

Also, most of the models, do not account for minimal warming in the Southern Hemisphere, Diurnal and seasonal asymmetry,
or the decline is Earth's energy imbalance since 2000.

You are very good at repeating yourself. You've done so many times now.

 

[longview]

Yes, AGW is relatively settled science.

Yes, AGW is relatively settled science.

The basic idea of forcing, yes! The additional concept of strong positive feedbacks, not at all!

 

[Luce]

What's awesome is that if we plan for AGW and it turns out to be false, all we did was make the world a cleaner, nicer place.

 

[istodolez]

In a macro sense, it is indeed settled science since the very great majority of climate scientists on a worldwide basis are certain that it is the CO2 produced by man's activities that is the primary cause. That does not mean, of course, that there will not be continued research to try to better understand it.

Agreed. Science is always in the job of questioning its own assumptions. I even agree that there's unknowns within AGW that need to be better understood. But generally the idea of AGW and the broad-brush aspects ("first order effects" if you will) are pretty well settled.

 

[longview]

You are very good at repeating yourself. You've done so many times now.

The data does not change, and the data says that there is minimal to no net positive feedback.
If there is no strong positive feedback, added CO2, is an interesting observation, but not a concern.

 

[longview]

What's awesome is that if we plan for AGW and it turns out to be false, all we did was make the world a cleaner, nicer place.

No! We wasted time chasing the wrong problem, when Humanity has a very real energy problem!

 

[istodolez]

If there is no strong positive feedback, added CO2, is an interesting observation, but not a concern.

Now you are really confusing me. YOu say you believe in ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. Yet you say added CO2 is not a concern.

So what is leading to the warming that is due to human activity?

Also: why don't you feel that altering the climate in ways unknown isn't a "concern"?

 

[longview]

Agreed. Science is always in the job of questioning its own assumptions. I even agree that there's unknowns within AGW that need to be better understood. But generally the idea of AGW and the broad-brush aspects ("first order effects" if you will) are pretty well settled.

I not even sure that can be said.
Consider that the IPCC and ACS, and other, say the ratio of energy imbalance forcing to warming is .3 C per Watt per meter squared,
but the accepted idea of the Greenhouse effect is that Earth is 33C warmer because of a 150 W m-2 imbalance,
a ratio of .22C per Watt per meter squared.
It may sound like a small difference, but if 2XCO2 actually forces an imbalance of 3.71 W m-2, then
2XCO2 forcing warming would be .22 X 3.71 = .8162C not the stated 1.1C.

 

[watsup]

No! We wasted time chasing the wrong problem, when Humanity has a very real energy problem!

It’s not a wrong problem. A transfer to green energy is indeed a large part of the solution.

 

[watsup]

I not even sure that can be said.
Consider that the IPCC and ACS, and other, say the ratio of energy imbalance forcing to warming is .3 C per Watt per meter squared,
but the accepted idea of the Greenhouse effect is that Earth is 33C warmer because of a 150 W m-2 imbalance,
a ratio of .22C per Watt per meter squared.
It may sound like a small difference, but if 2XCO2 actually forces an imbalance of 3.71 W m-2, then
2XCO2 forcing warming would be .22 X 3.71 = .8162C not the stated 1.1C.

I’ve read a couple of the articles that’s you have cited and could find no disagreement at all that CO2 is the prime mover of the present global warming. When is the last time that there was this much CO2 in the air and what was the result?

 

[watsup]

This is just part of the article:

“Two clear, powerful examples of a positive climate feedback loops are happening now in the Arctic. The first is happening on land, where permafrost that holds large amounts of both methane and carbon is thawing because of the climate crisis. The second on the ice and open ocean.
Methane is a very, very powerful greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere, compared to CO2, it’s fairly short-lived: only about 20 percent of the methane emitted today will still be in the atmosphere after 20 years. However, when it first enters the atmosphere, it’s around 120 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat and 86 times stronger over a 20-year period.
(CO2 hangs around for much longer: As much as 15 percent of today’s CO2 will still be in the atmosphere in 10,000 years.)
Arctic Methane and Carbon: The Time Bomb in the Soil
In the Arctic, methane and carbon can be found in permafrost, as well as in frozen peat bogs and under sediment on the sea floor. As these bogs and permafrost thaw thanks to climate change, the methane and carbon within are released into the atmosphere, adding yet more GHGs that can lead to further global warming. More warming results in more permafrost loss, adding yet more GHGs to the atmosphere to create even more warming and more melting permafrost, and on and on.
Given that frozen Arctic soil holds an estimated 1,460 to 1,600 billion tons of trapped carbon – almost twice the amount of GHGs currently in the atmosphere – scientists are deeply concerned about the unprecedented warming in the region and what it could mean for global efforts to halt rising temperatures.”

How Feedback Loops Are Making the Climate Crisis Worse

If you want to understand how our climate will change in the coming decades, you’ve got to understand feedback loops.

climaterealityproject.org

 

[watsup]

“Climate tipping points: When Earth’s climate abruptly moves between relatively stable states.

Ocean circulation. As Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet melt, ocean circulation in the Atlantic may divert the Gulf Stream. This and/or other changes would significantly change regional weather patterns. A change in the Gulf Stream could lead to a significant cooling in Western Europe. This highlights the importance of ocean circulation in maintaining regional climates.
Ice loss. Due to the strong positive feedback of the ice albedo, if enough ice melts, causing Earth’s surface to absorb more and more heat, then we may hit a point of no return. Shrinking ice sheets contribute to sea level rise. Many hundreds of millions of people live near a coast, so our ability to predict sea level rise over the next century has substantial human and economic ramifications.
Rapid release of methane. Deposits of frozen methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide lie beneath permafrost in Arctic regions. About a quarter of the Northern hemisphere is covered by permafrost. As the environment warms and the permafrost thaws, these deposits can be released into the atmosphere and present a risk of enhanced warming.4”

The Study of Earth as an Integrated System

Earth system science is the study of how scientific data stemming from various fields of research, such as the atmosphere, oceans, land ice and others, fit together to form the current picture of our changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[longview]

Now you are really confusing me. YOu say you believe in ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. Yet you say added CO2 is not a concern.

So what is leading to the warming that is due to human activity?

Also: why don't you feel that altering the climate in ways unknown isn't a "concern"?

I am not sure what is confusing about saying that if 2XCO2 sensitivity is low, it is not a concern.
Consider that if the only warming that 2XCO2 can cause is the basic forcing, say, 1.1C.
We might get to one doubling at 560 ppm, but we almost certainty cannot get to a second doubling at 1120 ppm.
Within the scope of already falling emissions, and improved efficiencies, it is unlikely we will get to 560 ppm.
Total warming from increases in CO2 will likely be below 1C, but spread out over 2 centuries,
or roughly the same amount of climate change Humans have been observing for many centuries.
We do need to work on Humanity's real problems, Energy and fresh water, but it really comes down to energy,
as with enough energy, we can produce all the fresh water we need.

 

[longview]

It’s not a wrong problem. A transfer to green energy is indeed a large part of the solution.

Green Energy so far lacks the seasonal grid scale storage, needed to make it viable.
Nature shows us the short term path of hydrocarbons, but hydrocarbons have been demonized
to the point that there is resistance to that path.

 

[istodolez]

I am not sure what is confusing about saying that if 2XCO2 sensitivity is low, it is not a concern.

Well, it's confusing because if we eliminate CO2 as a significant portion of AGW then you have to figure out what the REAL ANTHROPOGENIC forcings are.

So either you don't believe humans are responsible for ANTHROPOGENIC global warming or you think we are doing something ELSE that is a much larger forcing. At that point you run up against the understanding the experts across the globe over the last 40 years have developed.

So if it's not CO2 what is it?

 

[watsup]

“Sensitivity” is not a prediction of future temperatures
Estimates of climate sensitivity are not the same thing as model predictions of future temperatures. Sensitivity is a way to try to describe how the Earth system is capable of reacting if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were to double, not a prediction of if or when that might happen. Future temperatures depend, obviously, on how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide and how much we actually emit.

Preliminary data for 2013 show that the annual average carbon dioxide concentration was around 396 parts per million (ppm). In recent years, carbon dioxide concentrations have been growing at a rate of 2 to 2.5 ppm each year. At those rates, it would take 60-80 years to double the pre-industrial level of 275 ppm. However, the rate of increase over the past half century has not been steady; it's been accelerating by about 0.5 ppm per year per decade. If the acceleration continues into the future, then doubled pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentrations will be reached in about 50 years.”

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels? | NOAA Climate.gov

Concentration of carbon dioxide is about 1.4 times what it was before the Industrial Revolution. How much and how fast will Earth warm if carbon dioxide concentrations double the pre-industrial?

www.climate.gov