Climate scientists - there are plenty of them out there being ignored or disregarded by mainstream media

[Threegoofs]

I got tired of seeing you two go back and forth.

You think he has decent critical thinking? Have I been too pissed off of him to see it? All I see from him is criticism with no explanation to back it up. Sure, he will throw some links out and quotes, but those are from pundits, and he can't explain it in he own words. He has to use other peoples words.

Am I wrong? Does he really have some merit?

 

[longview]

I got tired of seeing you two go back and forth.

You think he has decent critical thinking? Have I been too pissed off of him to see it? All I see from him is criticism with no explanation to back it up. Sure, he will throw some links out and quotes, but those are from pundits, and he can't explain it in he own words. He has to use other peoples words.

Am I wrong? Does he really have some merit?

The jury is still out!

 

[watsup]

I keep telling these people, the papers don't say what the pundits claim they say.

“I keep telling these people”. That you do! *L*

 

[watsup]

Read Michael Schellenbergers book, Apocalypse Never!

Amazon.com

Did you actually read it? What did he say?

 

[Buzz]

That you for confirming that the idea of using a black box amplifier to evaluate climate feedbacks is new art.
The fact that no one else has done it, is what makes it new art.

Your black box amplifier is nothing but made-up bullshit that you were completely unable to explain how it would do anything to further the science of AGW. You even provided a few articles that mentioned black boxes but they were about how we should NOT use black boxes in climate science.

Sorry, long... but this particular new art of yours is nothing but junk science.

You say I am screwing up the math in converting a warming per 1000 GtC (or 1000 GtCO2) into 2XCO2,

yet you have not shown any error in the math! The IPCC themselves do not say if the results is pre or post
airborne fraction, but the peer reviewed literature does say TCRE is based on increasing the
CO2 concentration (PPM) by 1% annually, in a concentration driven model.
For your benefit, I have show both pre and post airborne fraction, and both are quite low.

Why do you insist on lying about this? You know what the error is. I have explained it to you numerous times now. Not accounting for the potion of man's cumulative emissions that are absorbed by the planet gives a result that is ridiculously low. And why would you need to convert TCRE to TCR when we already have a result for TCR? The only reason to make such a calculation is for the purpose of using your bogus mathematics to distort the science.

 

[Buzz]

Why do you bother? He will never stop. He is an expert irritant. I think that's the onlt thing he has going for himself in life. I feel sorry for him at times.

There you go again, breaking forum rule #4.

Don't you have anything better to do than bully people on the internet and run around here repeatedly claiming that you know more about climate change than everyone else?

You think he has decent critical thinking? Have I been too pissed off of him to see it? All I see from him is criticism with no explanation to back it up. Sure, he will throw some links out and quotes, but those are from pundits, and he can't explain it in he own words. He has to use other peoples words.

And there you go again lying about me. I rarely use the words of pundits and explain things in my own word all the time.

 

[longview]

Your black box amplifier is nothing but made-up bullshit that you were completely unable to explain how it would do anything to further the science of AGW. You even provided a few articles that mentioned black boxes but they were about how we should NOT use black boxes in climate science.

Sorry, long... but this particular new art of yours is nothing but junk science.

Why do you insist on lying about this? You know what the error is. I have explained it to you numerous times now. Not accounting for the potion of man's cumulative emissions that are absorbed by the planet gives a result that is ridiculously low. And why would you need to convert TCRE to TCR when we already have a result for TCR? The only reason to make such a calculation is for the purpose of using your bogus mathematics to distort the science.

Buzz, if my concept of testing the observed temperature record for feedbacks is indeed "made-up bullshit" that is
exactly what would make it new art, a unique new idea!
And yes, it could be of value to the study of AGW, if we can validate,(or invalidate), the idea how much feedback
warming can be produced by a given input warming. This idea of amplified feedbacks causing the majority of the predicted
warming is after all, at the heart of catastrophic AGW!

Buzz, You seem to think the error is in if the airborne fraction is accounted for, is the 1000 GtC a pure PPM increase
or is the PPM change the resulting 44%. The IPCC did not specify, but I calculated it both ways.
Here it is one more time since you keep saying I am lying.
IPCC AR6 SPM I will use the units from the main text.

Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C
increase in global surface temperature with a best estimate of 0.45°C.

Now 1000 GtCO2 is 273.3 GtC, and 213.3 GtC is 128 ppm in the CO2 concentration, before accounting for the airborne fraction,
and 56 ppm afterward. (we still do not know which they used, because TCRE is concentration driven).
To find the CO2 high level, I added the level to 280 ppm, for 408 ppm and 336 ppm.
The multiplier for each is defined as,
0.45°C/ln(408/280)=1.195, so before airborne fraction the 2XCO2 TCRE sensitivity is 1.195 X ln(2)=0.82°C
0.45°C/ln(336/280)=2.468, and after airborne fraction the 2XCO2 TCRE sensitivity is 2.468 X ln(2)=1.71°C
Both are MUCH lower than estimates of ECS, and are much more likely as predictors, as they more closely
simulate how Human emissions are actually happening.

 

[Integrityrespec]

View attachment 67407572
Did they?
.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I keep telling these people, the papers don't say what the pundits claim they say.

All the world's leading scientific societies acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

climate.nasa.gov

Page Not Found - 404 Error

www.opr.ca.gov

While the few studies that have refuted the urgent need for action was not only filled with errors but also contradicted each other.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

qz.com

 

[neil]

David Douglass - PhD & professor (University of Rochester)

 

[Buzz]

Buzz, if my concept of testing the observed temperature record for feedbacks is indeed "made-up bullshit" that is
exactly what would make it new art, a unique new idea!

Just because you have come up with a uniquely new idea does not mean it is a good idea.

And yes, it could be of value to the study of AGW, if we can validate,(or invalidate), the idea how much feedback
warming can be produced by a given input warming. This idea of amplified feedbacks causing the majority of the predicted
warming is after all, at the heart of catastrophic AGW!

You keep insisting that your "black-box amplifier" would be valuable in the study of AGW but you have yet to explain how. All you can do is cite instances where black-box evaluations are used in other scientific disciplines. Or you point out that amplified feedbacks are what makes AGW such a concern. So what?

The thing about a black box evaluation of feedbacks is that you wouldn't be able to assess all the different feedbacks because all you are doing is looking at just the input and the outputs while you ignore everything that happens inside of the box. And there is no way to assess feedbacks when you are ignoring most of what is really happening.

The fact of the matter is that you have yet to show exactly what your black box amplifier would tell us. And you have cited a couple of articles on climate science that mention black boxes but both were about how they don't help in studying climate science.

Buzz, You seem to think the error is in if the airborne fraction is accounted for, is the 1000 GtC a pure PPM increase

or is the PPM change the resulting 44%. The IPCC did not specify, but I calculated it both ways.

Look, long... I know what your error is. It is when you take cumulative emissions and calculate TCR as if all of those cumulative emissions stay in the atmosphere to increase the concentration. By doing this you are understating how much emissions would be needed to increase the concentration to a doubling. And when you do this you understate the warming that will be caused by the cumulative emissions. If you really understood this fact then you wouldn't need the IPCC to specify which would be the proper method. Not that your method is even needed as the science(and the IPCC) already gives us a range of numbers for TCR.

Oh... and you didn't do it both ways until after I pointed out your error.

Here it is one more time since you keep saying I am lying.

I don't need you to repeat yourself again because it isn't your math that I am saying is wrong. It is how you are getting and using the numbers to do the math. Now would you please quit lying and stop saying that I think your math is wrong?

Both are MUCH lower than estimates of ECS, and are much more likely as predictors, as they more closely
simulate how Human emissions are actually happening.

Damn, long... how many times do I have to point out that ECS and TCR are not directly comparable? TCR is the warming before full equalization while ECS is after. TCR is always going to be lower than ECS.

 

[flogger]

All the world's leading scientific societies acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

climate.nasa.gov

Page Not Found - 404 Error

www.opr.ca.gov

While the few studies that have refuted the urgent need for action was not only filled with errors but also contradicted each other.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

qz.com

It doesnt matter that the world is warming after a natural recovery from one of the three most devastating natural cooling periods of the last 10,000 years. Its the human attribution of it that thats in question and as the ice core record over recent millennia will attest it clearly isnt an issue. Whatever we do we'll never trump mother nature however much certain wealthy factions would like us to believe we can .... for their benefit of course

mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.html

We are currently (as the ice core record clearly attests) around the middle of recent millennia as regards temperature so basically nothing to see here

 

[watsup]

It doesnt matter that the world is warming after a natural recovery from one of the three most devastating natural cooling periods of the last 10,000 years. Its the human attribution of it that thats in question and as the ice core record over recent millennia will attest it clearly isnt an issue. Whatever we do we'll never trump mother nature however much certain wealthy factions would like us to believe we can .... for their benefit of course

mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.html

We are currently (as the ice core record clearly attests) around the middle of recent millennia as regards temperature so basically nothing to see here

As usual, you haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[longview]

Just because you have come up with a uniquely new idea does not mean it is a good idea.

You keep insisting that your "black-box amplifier" would be valuable in the study of AGW but you have yet to explain how. All you can do is cite instances where black-box evaluations are used in other scientific disciplines. Or you point out that amplified feedbacks are what makes AGW such a concern. So what?

The thing about a black box evaluation of feedbacks is that you wouldn't be able to assess all the different feedbacks because all you are doing is looking at just the input and the outputs while you ignore everything that happens inside of the box. And there is no way to assess feedbacks when you are ignoring most of what is really happening.

The fact of the matter is that you have yet to show exactly what your black box amplifier would tell us. And you have cited a couple of articles on climate science that mention black boxes but both were about how they don't help in studying climate science.

Look, long... I know what your error is. It is when you take cumulative emissions and calculate TCR as if all of those cumulative emissions stay in the atmosphere to increase the concentration. By doing this you are understating how much emissions would be needed to increase the concentration to a doubling. And when you do this you understate the warming that will be caused by the cumulative emissions. If you really understood this fact then you wouldn't need the IPCC to specify which would be the proper method. Not that your method is even needed as the science(and the IPCC) already gives us a range of numbers for TCR.

Oh... and you didn't do it both ways until after I pointed out your error.

I don't need you to repeat yourself again because it isn't your math that I am saying is wrong. It is how you are getting and using the numbers to do the math. Now would you please quit lying and stop saying that I think your math is wrong?

Damn, long... how many times do I have to point out that ECS and TCR are not directly comparable? TCR is the warming before full equalization while ECS is after. TCR is always going to be lower than ECS.

Numerical analysis of the observed data, is always a good idea!

As for using a black box analysis of the temperature record, A central tenant of AGW is that climate
feedbacks will amplify forcing warming inputs. to greatly increase warming.
That feedbacks exists is not argued, but the sign and scale of the feedbacks is only simulated.
Because of recent findings (Ricke and Caldeira) we know that small forcing events reach maximum warming
in about a decade. The aggregate of the climate feedbacks occur within a 10 year lag.
Any warming input, will see it's maximum warming output within a decade.
Within these boundary conditions, the entire temperature record can be evaluated for past feedback levels.
The temperature record does not support the high feedback factors necessary for a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of 3 C or higher!

Because I calculated TCRE 2XCO2 as both pre and post airborne fraction, you have not identified any error.
We still do not really know which they used, but even if it is pre airborne fraction, it is a 2XCO2 level of 1.71°C.
As for counting up in 1% concentration increments to some cumulative level in GtC,
They could for example count each 4.18 ppm (today's 1%) as 4.18/.44=9.5 ppm, or 20.24 GtC.
Because the simulation is concentration driven, (already post airborne fraction), they could simply look at the
CO2 remaining.

It is not a question of TCR and ECS being comparable, but that fact that ECS is not a good simulation
of how Humans emit CO2, the abrupt doubling, cause artifacts that skew the results.

 

[Buzz]

Numerical analysis of the observed data, is always a good idea!

As for using a black box analysis of the temperature record, A central tenant of AGW is that climate
feedbacks will amplify forcing warming inputs. to greatly increase warming.
That feedbacks exists is not argued, but the sign and scale of the feedbacks is only simulated.
Because of recent findings (Ricke and Caldeira) we know that small forcing events reach maximum warming
in about a decade. The aggregate of the climate feedbacks occur within a 10 year lag.
Any warming input, will see it's maximum warming output within a decade.
Within these boundary conditions, the entire temperature record can be evaluated for past feedback levels.
The temperature record does not support the high feedback factors necessary for a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of 3 C or higher!

Because I calculated TCRE 2XCO2 as both pre and post airborne fraction, you have not identified any error.
We still do not really know which they used, but even if it is pre airborne fraction, it is a 2XCO2 level of 1.71°C.
As for counting up in 1% concentration increments to some cumulative level in GtC,
They could for example count each 4.18 ppm (today's 1%) as 4.18/.44=9.5 ppm, or 20.24 GtC.
Because the simulation is concentration driven, (already post airborne fraction), they could simply look at the
CO2 remaining.

It is not a question of TCR and ECS being comparable, but that fact that ECS is not a good simulation
of how Humans emit CO2, the abrupt doubling, cause artifacts that skew the results.

Yup... nothing really about black-box amplifiers. Just more of your typical lies and distortions of climate science that you have repeated ad nauseam.

I'm done with this stupid rabbit hole of denialism.

 

[longview]

Yup... nothing really about black-box amplifiers. Just more of your typical lies and distortions of climate science that you have repeated ad nauseam.

I'm done with this stupid rabbit hole of denialism.

Buzz, in spite of your assertions, you have not shown what I am talking about in error!
The IPCC's numbers for TCRE converted to 2XCO2 are between 1 and 2 C.
And the black box analysis of the feedback factors that exists in the temperature record,
show the same basic thing, there is not enough feedback in the system to produce 2XCO2 warming of 3 C or higher.

 

[Volunteer]

Buzz, in spite of your assertions, you have not shown what I am talking about in error!
The IPCC's numbers for TCRE converted to 2XCO2 are between 1 and 2 C.
And the black box analysis of the feedback factors that exists in the temperature record,
show the same basic thing, there is not enough feedback in the system to produce 2XCO2 warming of 3 C or higher.

Are the 40,000,000,000+ tons of carbon emitted into our atmosphere each year by humans not really having any warming effect on climate? If not, how many more billions will it take to cause a greenhouse effect?

 

[longview]

Are the 40,000,000,000+ tons of carbon emitted into our atmosphere each year by humans not really having any warming effect on climate? If not, how many more billions will it take to cause a greenhouse effect?

Well we actually emit about 9.6 GtC each year, and I did not say that it would not cause any warming.
The open question is, How sensitive is our climate to added CO2.
Historically that level has been stated as warming in degrees C , per doubling.
The sensitivity matters, because we currently about 57% of the way towards our first doubling.(effect, actual level is 49.2%).
While it is likely we will see one doubling of the CO2 level, two doublings is very unlikely.
Future warming from the first doubling is restrained to the remaining 43%.
Yes we could go higher than one doubling, but we are already trimming CO2 emissions, and are on a path for
net zero, which is zero CO2 growth.

 

[Volunteer]

Well we actually emit about 9.6 GtC each year, and I did not say that it would not cause any warming.
The open question is, How sensitive is our climate to added CO2.
Historically that level has been stated as warming in degrees C , per doubling.
The sensitivity matters, because we currently about 57% of the way towards our first doubling.(effect, actual level is 49.2%).
While it is likely we will see one doubling of the CO2 level, two doublings is very unlikely.
Future warming from the first doubling is restrained to the remaining 43%.
Yes we could go higher than one doubling, but we are already trimming CO2 emissions, and are on a path for
net zero, which is zero CO2 growth.

"...we are already trimming CO2 emissions?" Who is "we?"

 

[longview]

"...we are already trimming CO2 emissions?" Who is "we?"

The US and much of the western world. (not China and India).
Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In 2020, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 5,981 million metric tons (13.2 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents. This total represents a 7 percent decrease since 1990 and a 20 percent decrease since 2005 (see Figure 1).

 

[flogger]

Well we actually emit about 9.6 GtC each year, and I did not say that it would not cause any warming.
The open question is, How sensitive is our climate to added CO2.
Historically that level has been stated as warming in degrees C , per doubling.
The sensitivity matters, because we currently about 57% of the way towards our first doubling.(effect, actual level is 49.2%).
While it is likely we will see one doubling of the CO2 level, two doublings is very unlikely.
Future warming from the first doubling is restrained to the remaining 43%.
Yes we could go higher than one doubling, but we are already trimming CO2 emissions, and are on a path for
net zero, which is zero CO2 growth.

Much as I often like your content here Longview I cannot begin to understand your mathematical approach to this issue. How can there be such an approach when empirical values for all the major integers involved are unknown hence the climate modelled basis for this agenda is totally bogus especially when viewed with what is actually happening in the real world

This is an entirely political agenda that divorced itself from any empirically verifiable science long ago hence thats why we differ in our respective approaches to this subject. Look whats happening to Europe right now as a consequence and its in the post for you guys

No disrespect inferred here just an observation

 

[longview]

Much as I often like your content here Longview I cannot begin to understand your mathematical approach to this issue. How can there be such an approach when empirical values for all the major integers are unknown hence the climate modelled basis for this agenda is totally bogus especially when viewed with what is actually happening in the real world

This is an entirely political agenda that divorced itself from any empirically verifiable science long ago hence thats why we differ in our respective approaches to this subject

No disrespect inferred here just an observation

Sorry, at a CO2 level of 418 ppm we are 138 ppm above the pre industrial level of 280 ppm, or 49.2% of the physical count
towards doubling, 138/280=0.492.
Because CO2 forcing in on a natural log curve, that 49.2% of the ppm level works out to 57% of the actual forcing.
5.35 X ln(418/280) =2.14 W m-2, out of 3.71 W m-2 for a CO2 doubling, or 2.14/3.71 =.0576.
If we consider that all the forcing that can happen from a doubling of the CO2 level is 100%,
and 57.6% has already happened, there is only 43% remaining.

i.e. I am using their own accounting numbers to show where we are.

 

[flogger]

Sorry, at a CO2 level of 418 ppm we are 138 ppm above the pre industrial level of 280 ppm, or 49.2% of the physical count
towards doubling, 138/280=0.492.
Because CO2 forcing in on a natural log curve, that 49.2% of the ppm level works out to 57% of the actual forcing.
5.35 X ln(418/280) =2.14 W m-2, out of 3.71 W m-2 for a CO2 doubling, or 2.14/3.71 =.0576.
If we consider that all the forcing that can happen from a doubling of the CO2 level is 100%,
and 57.6% has already happened, there is only 43% remaining.

i.e. I am using their own accounting numbers to show where we are.

Yup but for most of the period life has existed on Earth the natural level of CO2 has been between 5 and 8 times higher than it is today with the then living biomass dwarfing what we currently have as a consequence .

More CO2 is clearly a GOOD thing for life in general

 

[longview]

Yup but for most of the period life has existed on Earth the natural level of CO2 has been between 5 and 8 times higher than it is today with the then living biomass dwarfing what we currently have as a consequence .

More CO2 is clearly a GOOD thing for life in general

Plants clearly like a higher level, and warmer is much better than colder.
The idea of negative consequences to a warmer world, is a bit overblown.
It may not be perfect, but I suspect the positive effects will outweigh the negatives.
In any case, I do not think the climate is that sensitive to added CO2, perhaps between 1 and 2 C per doubling.

 

[Gordy327]

Yup but for most of the period life has existed on Earth the natural level of CO2 has been between 5 and 8 times higher than it is today with the then living biomass dwarfing what we currently have as a consequence .

More CO2 is clearly a GOOD thing for life in general

CO2 is better for plant life. But plants can only absorb so much CO2 at any given time. With deforestation (ie less plant life) and habitat changes caused by human activity, CO2 concentration is rising faster than can be absorbed and can warm and alter the climate. It certainly would not be good for us.