• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Interview with Judy Curry

Umm....I don't know where you get that from. Considering that even undergrads know how statistics are used to characterize distributions.
Lets look at the titles on the groups.
Instrumental period Evaluation based on decent accuracy instrument data
Current mean climate state because this is the only place this phrase appears in the paper, I cannot be certain what they are talking about!
General circulation models Subject to the assumptions used at initialization
Volcanic eruptions A measure of the pulse response to a transient negative forcing
Proxy data from millions of years ago Very subjective, and of questionable accuracy
Expert elicitation This is simply an opinion
 
There are quite a few studies and they show the aerosol dimming and brightening, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere.
As for global changes Wild 2005 had the following.
Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2
in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22)
Yes, Wild 2005 had this. But that wasn't from their results. That was a quote about another completely different study Pallé 2004. And that study wasn't just about aerosols. It was about the change in the Earth's albedo that would include things like the changes in snow and ice cover and changes in clouds. Sorry, long... but you can't use this quoted increase of 6 W m-2 to be from just changes in aerosols.

But since you brought up Wild 2005 let's see what it also had to say that you either didn't bother to read or just ignored:
The absence of dimming since the mid-1980s may profoundly affect surface climate. Whereas the decline in solar energy could have
counter balanced the increase in downwelling longwave energy from the enhanced greenhouse effect before the1980s(10), this masking of the greenhouse effect and related impacts may no longer have been effective thereafter, enabling the greenhouse signals to become more evident during the 1990s.
This is pretty much what I(and others) have been telling you repeatedly. The fact of the matter is that aerosols are a negative forcing that has been offsetting the positive forcing of GHGs. And aerosols will always be a negative forcing no matter how much you twist the facts.
And we know the brightening began in 1985, and was still happening in 2015.
Yes, brightening began around 1985 but there is plenty of data that says that there has been significant dimming in China and India since about 2015. And you should know this but you have a tendency to block inconvenient facts from your mind.
I do not think the net effect of the aerosols is near zero ether, and because of the very little data
on aerosol levels in 1900, we do not know if the dimming was already well under way.
This leave room for the current aerosol dimming to be less than the 1900 aerosol dimming, so an increase in insolation
relative to 1900.
Really?? So... if dimming was already underway in 1900 then for there to be an increase in insolation relative to 1900 then there would have to have been little or no continuing decrease from 1900 to 1950. Do you seriously think this would be the case? We know that the decline continued between 1950 and 1985. I think that this pretty much eliminates the possibility that current aerosol dimming would be less than in 1900.
NASA Earthoberrvatory

Half of .6C sure sound like .3C to me!
A couple of problems with this. First, the quote is "as much as half" so it could easily be less. And from your link:
This page contains archived content and is no longer being updated. At the time of publication, it represented the best available science.
I don't suppose you could back up your .3C with something more definitive than what many scientists "believed" 20+ years ago.
Well, let's look at my entire statement,
"To me it looks like the aerosol clearing could account for about .2C of the observed warming,
natural warming, another .3C, so .5 C out of about 1.1C of total observed warming.
the remaining .6C would line up well with the the supposed CO2 forcing for an increase from 280 ppm to 415 ppm.
5.35 X ln(415/280) X .3= .63C.
What this would mean is that CO2 forcing has no net feedback!"
This statement is directly in line with climate science,
If the total warming that cannot be attributed to other sources is .6C,
and CO2 forcing is .63C, then CO2 would have a nearly zero net feedback.
Hogwash!! There is no current and legitimate climate science that says that CO2 forcing has a net feedback of nearly zero. Even the overly simple Otto and biased Lewis and Curry studies don't make such a ridiculous claim. This is nothing but denialist lies and misinformation that you need to quit pushing!
 
Yes, Wild 2005 had this. But that wasn't from their results. That was a quote about another completely different study Pallé 2004. And that study wasn't just about aerosols. It was about the change in the Earth's albedo that would include things like the changes in snow and ice cover and changes in clouds. Sorry, long... but you can't use this quoted increase of 6 W m-2 to be from just changes in aerosols.

But since you brought up Wild 2005 let's see what it also had to say that you either didn't bother to read or just ignored:

This is pretty much what I(and others) have been telling you repeatedly. The fact of the matter is that aerosols are a negative forcing that has been offsetting the positive forcing of GHGs. And aerosols will always be a negative forcing no matter how much you twist the facts.

Yes, brightening began around 1985 but there is plenty of data that says that there has been significant dimming in China and India since about 2015. And you should know this but you have a tendency to block inconvenient facts from your mind.

Really?? So... if dimming was already underway in 1900 then for there to be an increase in insolation relative to 1900 then there would have to have been little or no continuing decrease from 1900 to 1950. Do you seriously think this would be the case? We know that the decline continued between 1950 and 1985. I think that this pretty much eliminates the possibility that current aerosol dimming would be less than in 1900.

A couple of problems with this. First, the quote is "as much as half" so it could easily be less. And from your link:

I don't suppose you could back up your .3C with something more definitive than what many scientists "believed" 20+ years ago.

Hogwash!! There is no current and legitimate climate science that says that CO2 forcing has a net feedback of nearly zero. Even the overly simple Otto and biased Lewis and Curry studies don't make such a ridiculous claim. This is nothing but denialist lies and misinformation that you need to quit pushing!
Buzz, I think the entire point you are missing, is that it does not matter what else the warming is attributed to besides greenhouse gasses.
Because the greenhouse gas attribution is a subtraction methodology, any other attribution takes away from what remains to be attributed to additional greenhouse gases!
P.S. the 2001, .3C claim was cited as coming from the IPCC, I have never seen that one, but NASA has seen fit to leave it on their web site.

What would a net zero feedback look like? If 2XCO2 forcing is 1.1C, than after centuries, the same 1.1C is still at 1.1C!
There is nothing that says the net of all the forcing will be positive!
There is something that says it may be negative, the Earth is 33C warmer than it could be and 20% of that is from CO2.
8.09 doublings to cause 6.6C of warming is .81C per doubling, for CO2 that has been around since Earth had an atmosphere.
If 2XCO2 forcing is 1.1C, and the older doublings are .81C, the only way to get there is a negative forcing!
 
Buzz, I think the entire point you are missing, is that it does not matter what else the warming is attributed to besides greenhouse gasses.
I'm not missing anything. And it DOES matter what the warming is attributed to if you want to be taken seriously. To say otherwise is just completely ridiculous.
Because the greenhouse gas attribution is a subtraction methodology, any other attribution takes away from what remains to be attributed to additional greenhouse gases!
Let's be clear about something here. This subtraction methodology you are attempting to use is YOUR methodology. No one, as far as I am aware, in climate science is using this method because they know what you can't seem to figure out. And that is that there isn't enough known about all of aerosols forcings and its feedbacks to quantify it accurately for the entire Earth. We do know enough to know it is a negative forcing but you either want to pretend it doesn't exist or that it is a positive forcing so that you can get the results that you want.
P.S. the 2001, .3C claim was cited as coming from the IPCC, I have never seen that one, but NASA has seen fit to leave it on their web site.
Yeah... they also saw fit to provide a warning that the content of the site was outdated. But you don't care. You just believe whatever you want no matter if it is true or not.
What would a net zero feedback look like? If 2XCO2 forcing is 1.1C, than after centuries, the same 1.1C is still at 1.1C!
There is nothing that says the net of all the forcing will be positive!
There is something that says it may be negative, the Earth is 33C warmer than it could be and 20% of that is from CO2.
8.09 doublings to cause 6.6C of warming is .81C per doubling, for CO2 that has been around since Earth had an atmosphere.
If 2XCO2 forcing is 1.1C, and the older doublings are .81C, the only way to get there is a negative forcing!
Now you are just trying to change the subject. Unfortunately for you, this overly simplified calculation is just as stupid as your other one. And it also goes directly against the vast majority of all the rest of climate science with your claim of CO2 having a negative feedback.

When are you going to quit pushing this intellectually dishonest garbage? Don't you ever get tired of being proven wrong over and over again?
 
I'm not missing anything. And it DOES matter what the warming is attributed to if you want to be taken seriously. To say otherwise is just completely ridiculous.

Let's be clear about something here. This subtraction methodology you are attempting to use is YOUR methodology. No one, as far as I am aware, in climate science is using this method because they know what you can't seem to figure out. And that is that there isn't enough known about all of aerosols forcings and its feedbacks to quantify it accurately for the entire Earth. We do know enough to know it is a negative forcing but you either want to pretend it doesn't exist or that it is a positive forcing so that you can get the results that you want.

Yeah... they also saw fit to provide a warning that the content of the site was outdated. But you don't care. You just believe whatever you want no matter if it is true or not.

Now you are just trying to change the subject. Unfortunately for you, this overly simplified calculation is just as stupid as your other one. And it also goes directly against the vast majority of all the rest of climate science with your claim of CO2 having a negative feedback.

When are you going to quit pushing this intellectually dishonest garbage? Don't you ever get tired of being proven wrong over and over again?
Because there is not a test or an experiment that can validate how sensitivity the climate is to added greenhouse gasses,
the only pas is a subtractive method, and we see it mentioned indirectly fairly often.
When you see words to the effect of "there is no alternative explanation", it represents a subtractive methodology,
i.e. they do not know what it is, but they know what it is not!

As far as the SORCE data being outdated, if in 2001 they found that up to .3C of the observed .6C of total warming was natural,
Why would you think the amount attributed to the natural category change in 20 years?
Also, they could change the statement on their website any time they choose, if they felt it was incorrect.
In addition we have things like this, Chapter 3: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

Key Finding 1​




The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 93%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. It is extremely likely that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate (high confidence). The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence).
So what was half of the warming between 1951 and 2010?
HadCrut4 says .733C, so half is .36C, so the .3C is not ruled out!

"overly simplified calculation":, If you find an error in my calculations, then point it out.
The idea that the overall greenhouse effect is 33C, and that CO2 accounts for 20% of that, is not my idea,
and the calculation of 33C X .2 = 6.6C, is not incorrect.
I am saying that it takes 8.09 doublings to increase CO2 from 1 ppm to 280 ppm, perhaps I made an error there,
but 1ppm to 256 ppm is 8 doublings, so 280 ppm is 256/24=.093.
More important is that the 8.09 doublings lines up with expected forcing for 2XCO2, 3.71 W m-2.
using my "overly simplified calculation" 20% of the greenhouse effect forcing of 150 W m-2, is 30 W m-2,
and 30W m-2/8.09 doublings is 3.708 W m-2.
P.S. I may have been in error, on some things, but you have not proven me wrong, you have introduced some additional variables, thank you!
 
Because there is not a test or an experiment that can validate how sensitivity the climate is to added greenhouse gasses,
the only pas is a subtractive method, and we see it mentioned indirectly fairly often.
If the subtractive method is the only way then why doesn't anyone, except you, use it?
When you see words to the effect of "there is no alternative explanation", it represents a subtractive methodology,
i.e. they do not know what it is, but they know what it is not!
Oh, please... just using logic like that is not the same as what you are doing. Don't forget that in your figuring both the sensitivity of GHGs and levels of aerosols are both really unknown.
As far as the SORCE data being outdated, if in 2001 they found that up to .3C of the observed .6C of total warming was natural,
Why would you think the amount attributed to the natural category change in 20 years?
Now that... is a stupid question.
Also, they could change the statement on their website any time they choose, if they felt it was incorrect.
Yes... they could. Or they could just put up a disclaimer instead of trying to go back a correct all the incorrect information. And I doubt that that is the only page that would need updating. Do you really think this is a legitimate argument?
In addition we have things like this, Chapter 3: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

So what was half of the warming between 1951 and 2010?
HadCrut4 says .733C, so half is .36C, so the .3C is not ruled out!
So... if a "as much as half" automatically becomes half and a "at least half" automatically becomes half in the opposite directions both to support your bias then you obviously shouldn't be taken seriously.
"overly simplified calculation":, If you find an error in my calculations, then point it out.
The idea that the overall greenhouse effect is 33C, and that CO2 accounts for 20% of that, is not my idea,
and the calculation of 33C X .2 = 6.6C, is not incorrect.
I am saying that it takes 8.09 doublings to increase CO2 from 1 ppm to 280 ppm, perhaps I made an error there,
but 1ppm to 256 ppm is 8 doublings, so 280 ppm is 256/24=.093.
More important is that the 8.09 doublings lines up with expected forcing for 2XCO2, 3.71 W m-2.
using my "overly simplified calculation" 20% of the greenhouse effect forcing of 150 W m-2, is 30 W m-2,
and 30W m-2/8.09 doublings is 3.708 W m-2.
P.S. I may have been in error, on some things, but you have not proven me wrong, you have introduced some additional variables, thank you!
I don't even need any math to prove this methodology wrong. All that is needed is logic.

Think about it long. How did the Earth initially warm? It wasn't as a big cold chunk of rock with a fully formed atmosphere that was just missing the GHGs and then the CO2 started to build up and start warming things like your methodology suggests. No, it started out as a huge chunk of molten rock that was being constantly bombarded with impactors and volcanic activity. And that volcanic activity was spewing out tons of CO2 and other gases. And I seriously doubt that the build-up of GHGs back then was the main driver of the planet's temperature.

Seriously long... both of these methodologies of yours are a joke. And I am convinced you can't show a single peer-reviewed and published warming attribution study that uses either of them.
 
If the subtractive method is the only way then why doesn't anyone, except you, use it?

Oh, please... just using logic like that is not the same as what you are doing. Don't forget that in your figuring both the sensitivity of GHGs and levels of aerosols are both really unknown.

Now that... is a stupid question.

Yes... they could. Or they could just put up a disclaimer instead of trying to go back a correct all the incorrect information. And I doubt that that is the only page that would need updating. Do you really think this is a legitimate argument?

So... if a "as much as half" automatically becomes half and a "at least half" automatically becomes half in the opposite directions both to support your bias then you obviously shouldn't be taken seriously.

I don't even need any math to prove this methodology wrong. All that is needed is logic.

Think about it long. How did the Earth initially warm? It wasn't as a big cold chunk of rock with a fully formed atmosphere that was just missing the GHGs and then the CO2 started to build up and start warming things like your methodology suggests. No, it started out as a huge chunk of molten rock that was being constantly bombarded with impactors and volcanic activity. And that volcanic activity was spewing out tons of CO2 and other gases. And I seriously doubt that the build-up of GHGs back then was the main driver of the planet's temperature.

Seriously long... both of these methodologies of yours are a joke. And I am convinced you can't show a single peer-reviewed and published warming attribution study that uses either of them.
Buzz, When I say subtractive methodology, I am simply attaching a name to what they are doing,
They do not know the how sensitive the climate is to added greenhouse gasses, so the look at the total warming,
and subtract out all the known causes, what remains is attributed to the increase in greenhouse gases.
You can deny this, but it is what they are doing!
You are correct, that the aerosols are another unknown, which greatly complicates their greenhouse gas attribution.

I was not aware that the NASA SORCE group had posted a disclaimer, perhaps you can cite it?

Face it, you have not disproven anything!
 
Buzz, When I say subtractive methodology, I am simply attaching a name to what they are doing,
They do not know the how sensitive the climate is to added greenhouse gasses, so the look at the total warming,
and subtract out all the known causes, what remains is attributed to the increase in greenhouse gases.
You can deny this, but it is what they are doing!
You are correct, that the aerosols are another unknown, which greatly complicates their greenhouse gas attribution.
Now you are just lying. Or maybe you can prove me wrong and cite and quote from a legitimate peer-reviewed study that tries to use aerosols directly like you are suggesting.
I was not aware that the NASA SORCE group had posted a disclaimer, perhaps you can cite it?
I already did. Post #77
Face it, you have not disproven anything!
Anything? Damn long... you really do live in a fantasy world, don't you?
 
Now you are just lying. Or maybe you can prove me wrong and cite and quote from a legitimate peer-reviewed study that tries to use aerosols directly like you are suggesting.

I already did. Post #77

Anything? Damn long... you really do live in a fantasy world, don't you?
Actually it is you who cannot prove me wrong, You have not stipulated an attribution methodology!
How do you think science attributes observed warming to increases in CO2?

As for post#77, you did not have any links, to anything, so could not have linked to a NASA disclaimer!

No! I live in a world of science and numbers, and the observed data does not support high levels of CO2 climate sensitivity.
In fact, as we find out more, ECS is the wrong measure, as CO2 will never double instantly,
and even TCR, represents too high of an emission level.
 
Actually it is you who cannot prove me wrong,
Actually, I have already provided several quotes from climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies that say you are wrong. You just ignored them. And since you can't back up what you say it is actually you who can't prove me wrong.
You have not stipulated an attribution methodology!
And why would I need to do that? It is your methodology that you are pushing here. You should be able to back it up. But you can't.
How do you think science attributes observed warming to increases in CO2?
There are several ways. And all you have to do is read the literature to find out how.
As for post#77, you did not have any links, to anything, so could not have linked to a NASA disclaimer!
This is just WRONG! I provided a quote of yours that contained your link to the NASA page that had both the disclaimer and your quoted text.
No! I live in a world of science and numbers, and the observed data does not support high levels of CO2 climate sensitivity.
In your biased opinion.
In fact, as we find out more, ECS is the wrong measure, as CO2 will never double instantly,
and even TCR, represents too high of an emission level.
No one, except denialists, thinks that climate scientists believe that CO2 will double instantly.
 
Actually, I have already provided several quotes from climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies that say you are wrong. You just ignored them. And since you can't back up what you say it is actually you who can't prove me wrong.

This is just WRONG! I provided a quote of yours that contained your link to the NASA page that had both the disclaimer and your quoted text.



No one, except denialists, thinks that climate scientists believe that CO2 will double instantly.
I saw the quote, but it does not change the fact that if up to .3C were attributed to the .6C in 2001, that the same .3C would remain in 2021.
In reality HadCrut4 decade smoothed places the pre 1950 warning at .258C.
And why would I need to do that? It is your methodology that you are pushing here. You should be able to back it up. But you can't.
Why do you need to stipulated an attribution methodology?
Because if you are saying my attribution methodology is incorrect, you have to support your statement, as to why!
There are several ways. And all you have to do is read the literature to find out how.
If you had access to published attribution methodology different than what I am saying, you would have cited it!

No! I live in a world of science and numbers, and the observed data does not support high levels of CO2 climate sensitivity.
In your biased opinion.
If you can show where in the observed instrument data a high amplification exists, you would do so!

No one, except denialists, thinks that climate scientists believe that CO2 will double instantly.
And yet this is the basis of the idea of ECS, An instantaneous doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Determining Temperature Changes in Response to CO2 Emissions
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) measures the long-term response of global mean temperature to a fixed forcing,
conventionally taken as an instantaneous doubling of CO2 concentrations from their preindustrial levels.
In reality CO2 levels are raising slower than the TCR rate of 1% per year, and smaller pluses result in faster temperature maximization times.
Keep in mind that is a 10 year pulse(100 GtC) has a maximum warming time of 10.1 years,
and a 100 years pulse, (1000 GtC) has a maximum warming time of 37 years.
What is the maximum warming time of a 10 GtC pulse? (current emissions are about 9.6GtC annually).
 
Has ether of you read any of Curry's papers? She is a very real climate scientist, and has published many times.
If she were unbiased, she wouldn't be spouting socialism conspiracy theories and instead just sticking to the facts.
 
If she were unbiased, she wouldn't be spouting socialism conspiracy theories and instead just sticking to the facts.
I once saw a video as to how she described the climate sciences were being taken over by politics. It was very convincing.

Keep an open mind. This does appear true.
 
If she were unbiased, she wouldn't be spouting socialism conspiracy theories and instead just sticking to the facts.
She has testified under oath before congress, if she had said anything false, she could have been prosecuted.
Since she was not, the truth about AGW is vague enough to cover a wide range of opinions.
 
She has testified under oath before congress, if she had said anything false, she could have been prosecuted.
Since she was not, the truth about AGW is vague enough to cover a wide range of opinions.
She believes what she says. She's just biased and believes incorrect things because she sees this grand conspiracy of socialism to destroy the truth.

A conspiracy theorist will perceive everything in the light of their conspiracy theory. That old saying about hearing hooves and thinking horses instead of zebras? A conspiracy theorist hears horses and thinks unicorns. That's why her conclusions are not to be trusted. She looks at facts and comes up with ridiculous conclusions from them. That's what conspiracy theorists do.
 
She has testified under oath before congress, if she had said anything false, she could have been prosecuted.
Since she was not, the truth about AGW is vague enough to cover a wide range of opinions.
She maintains her professionalism in those hearings and presents solid informaion that is easily backed up. Michael Mann has fits, trying unsuccessfully to claim she is wrong. It's so funny watching him get his panties in a bunch.
 
She maintains her professionalism in those hearings and presents solid informaion that is easily backed up. Michael Mann has fits, trying unsuccessfully to claim she is wrong. It's so funny watching him get his panties in a bunch.
Curry is widely seen as generally wrong and kinda wacky. She’s not really that well regarded as a scientist- she went to administration pretty early in her career, and now isnt even in academia.

Mann, on the other hand, is a full distinguished professor at a top earth science school and a member of the NAS, an honor that will never be awarded to someone with as mediocre a record as Curry.

You, of course, have no idea what membership in the NAS signifies or entails.
 
Curry is widely seen as generally wrong and kinda wacky. She’s not really that well regarded as a scientist- she went to administration pretty early in her career, and now isnt even in academia.
Is that what the media tells you? How many fellow scientists say that about her? Mann is the only one I have heard that from, and he profits from the AGW scare, making money on five books.

Mann, on the other hand, is a full distinguished professor at a top earth science school and a member of the NAS, an honor that will never be awarded to someone with as mediocre a record as Curry.
Are you saying Curry is not distinguished? Really? You should look at her credentials some time and how many papers she has authored.
You, of course, have no idea what membership in the NAS signifies or entails.
Believe as you wish.
 
I am guessing that you do not do these type of risks assessments in what you do for a living.
I do, and quite a bit of it comes down to decades of experience looking at the available data.
It is always safer to leave a wide margin!
To "leave a wide margin" with respect to climate change we would've taken it deadly seriously decades ago. Why? Because we don't want to find out the hard way if the science is correct or not.
 
Is that what the media tells you? How many fellow scientists say that about her? Mann is the only one I have heard that from, and he profits from the AGW scare, making money on five books.


Are you saying Curry is not distinguished? Really? You should look at her credentials some time and how many papers she has authored.

Believe as you wish.

"AGW scare". *L*
 
To "leave a wide margin" with respect to climate change we would've taken it deadly seriously decades ago. Why? Because we don't want to find out the hard way if the science is correct or not.

It is not a good idea to "leave a wide margin" when the situation has existential underpinnings.
 
It is not a good idea to "leave a wide margin" when the situation has existential underpinnings.
Think of the arrogance of someone that posts on the internet that they think we should risk pretty much everything because of their "I'm sorta an engineer" or even "I am an engineer" opinions.
 
Is that what the media tells you? How many fellow scientists say that about her? Mann is the only one I have heard that from, and he profits from the AGW scare, making money on five books.


Are you saying Curry is not distinguished? Really? You should look at her credentials some time and how many papers she has authored.

Believe as you wish.
Mann literally has a ‘Distinguished Professor’ title. Curry was a head of a department, which is usually what happens when competent, but not really brilliant scientists end up. Note that you just duck the NAS member thing, which is an amazing accomplishment at his age. But, then again, you wouldnt know, working the graveyard shift and all.
 
To "leave a wide margin" with respect to climate change we would've taken it deadly seriously decades ago. Why? Because we don't want to find out the hard way if the science is correct or not.
Your statement implies that human CO2 emissions have the capability of rendering the Earth uninhabitable, yet there is little in the published science that actually claims this.
Keep in mind that what will result from some level of CO2 emissions is highly subjective.
Combinations of high sensitivity and high emission scenarios, can produce scary results, but both are very unlikely to nearly impossible!
 
Your statement implies that human CO2 emissions have the capability of rendering the Earth uninhabitable, yet there is little in the published science that actually claims this.
Keep in mind that what will result from some level of CO2 emissions is highly subjective.
Combinations of high sensitivity and high emission scenarios, can produce scary results, but both are very unlikely to nearly impossible!
You've failed to understand. Nobody knows for sure what will happen but the projected outcomes aren't good. The change in weather could easily result in large food crop failures, massive fires, devastating droughts, devastating water events, more pandemics, etc, etc. You want to roll the dice on that. Why? What's your reasoning for risking it? Try to give some good reasons.

And, yes, it's also a complete existential threat. We could cause runaway climate change.
 
Back
Top Bottom