Can you cite a peer reviewed scientific paper that supports your idea, that Earth will become unlivable, unless we change our ways?If we refuse to address the negative human effects on our environment the earth will become unlivable for the current population as the oceans rise, the weather becomes too unpredictably violent for life and agriculture and the atmosphere heats up.
What we have been doing is not enough if we expect to be able to live at our current standard of living. Either we can change or the earth changes and one-quarter to one third of the population and 1/3 of the species are wiped out by disease, flooding and famine and environmental upheaval.
That doesn't change the fact that he is still a climate denier.He is trained as a chemist. He is not a climatologist with a peer reviewed body of work.
What do you fear happening if climate change is addressed?
I fear the feckless waste of resources to address a non-existent problem, reducing the resources available to address real needs.
Like.....HCQ studies.
Maybe in this case it is:
One has to wonder from which hat they pulled the 1.72°C from!
Image Source: El-Borie et al., 2020
Interestingly, this same paper claims Total Solar Irradiance variations alone are responsible for 0.5°C of the warming from 1950 to 2016, with the decline in cloud cover corresponding to galactic cosmic ray intensities since the early 1980s.
Image Source: El-Borie et al., 2020
So without the added/changed/adjusted temperatures during the last few years, it could be said that changes in TSI are mostly responsible for recent warming.
[h=2]The IPCC Claimed Earth Warmed 0.6°C From 1861-2014. Now It’s Claimed Earth Warmed 1.72°C From 1850-2015[/h]
One has to wonder from which hat they pulled the 1.72°C from!
The decade smoothed Harcrut4 has an 1850 number of -0.274°C, and a 2019 temp of 0.700°C, a difference of .974°C.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...ries/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg_smooth.txt
I guess they needed to increase the warming to account for the 0.5°C from TSI changes!
I think the contortions they will need to assume, to keep their concept in tact,I think this paper tries to square the circle, conceding the obvious significant solar role while not (yet) repudiating previous exclusive AGW attribution. It's a kind of halfway house.
Scientists: It’s ‘Impossible’ To Measure Critical Cloud Processes…Observations 1/50th As Accurate As They Must Be
By Kenneth Richard on 20. August 2020
Share this...
Clouds dominate as the driver of changes in the Earth’s radiation budget and climate. A comprehensive new analysis suggests we’re so uncertain about cloud processes and how they affect climate we can’t even quantify our uncertainty. . . .
Cloud physics challenges in climate modeling
But it gets worse. Morrison et al. (2020) acknowledge cloud microphysics – processes affecting precipitation and evaporation – are a “critical part of the Earth’s weather and climate”. But they further assess:
“t is impossible to simulate every cloud particle.”
“There are critical gaps in knowledge of the microphysical processes that act on particles.”
“[K]nowledge gaps in cloud processes both introduce important uncertainties into models that translate into uncertainty in weather forecasts and climate simuations, including climate change assessments.”
“t has been difficult or even impossible to constrain many individual process rates in schemes directly from observations.”
“There is currently no method to obtain airborne observations of in-cloud supersaturation with respect to liquid, which requires much more accurate methods for measuring temperature (to within 0.01°C) than possible using conventional airborne temperature sensors (typically 0.5°C).”
“[This] calls into question not only the realism of these schemes at their core but whether or not in principle they are even verifiable.”
In other words, we are seriously overestimating the extent to which we can model or even understand the factors affecting weather and climate due to critical observational constraints and knowledge gaps in cloud processes.
[h=6]Image Source: Morrison et al., 2020[/h]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?