• 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!

The Weak Foundation of Calls for Climate Action

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,343
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think the main reason why climate alarmists have become so loud and strident lately is because they are aware (even if only subconsciously) how insubstantial is the actual data case for the extreme measures they advocate. A new paper explains this in some detail.


How much human-caused global warming should we expect?

By Andy May OMG! The world is going to end, and we caused it. This story, in one form or another, goes back to biblical times. According to Genesis (6:9 to 9:17) God decided that humans had sinned too much and must be punished, so he called up a great flood to destroy the world.…
38 mins ago March 21, 2020 in Climate News, IPCC AR5 Report.

". . . Connolly, Connolly, Carter and Soon have written a new paper (Connolly, et al. 2020) examining the IPCC predictions the UNFCCC used to construct the Paris Agreement. We will refer to their paper as “C3S20.” While the paper has just been published, it has been a work-in-progress for some time. Dr. Robert M. Carter passed away on January 19, 2016, but he did a considerable amount of work on an earlier version of the paper.
C3S20 asks, how much human-caused warming will occur if we do nothing, that is, continue “business-as-usual?” It’s unfortunate, but the IPCC, for all their work, do not adequately answer that question, their projections are all based on abstract “scenarios.”. . .
As we see by reading C3S20, the 2.0°C limit idea in the UNFCCC Paris Agreement is very flawed. The agreement does not define the preindustrial starting point, either as a temperature or a greenhouse concentration. It is not even defined in time. The effect of human-emitted greenhouse gases is not known accurately enough. This is clearly seen in Figure 2. The error in warming estimates for 2020, is larger than the total surface warming since 1850. Finally, there have been no observed problems with warming or greenhouse gas emissions. The net impacts of warming and higher greenhouse gas concentrations have been positive to date according to the economists that have studied the issue. Further, the impacts are likely to remain positive for some time to come.
The 2.0°C limit is arbitrary and subjective (Mahony 2015) and has no starting point. There is no way to accurately project the effects of the emissions the UNFCCC seeks to control, and two degrees of warming is just as likely to be beneficial as harmful. Further, we have no idea how natural forces will affect future climate, will they contribute to warming or work in the opposite way? There are studies that point both ways. See here and here. . . ."
 
Grand Mal said:
But that's just NASA. There's a blog by a retired TV weatherman that totally refutes NASA, NOAA, the British Antarctic Survey, all those leftist organisations.
Click to expand...

A weatherman! Why didnt you say so. Clearly that is where we should get our science from
 
Grand Mal said:
But that's just NASA. There's a blog by a retired TV weatherman that totally refutes NASA, NOAA, the British Antarctic Survey, all those leftist organisations.
Click to expand...

The OP presents a peer-reviewed paper (abstract shown below). And btw, the British Antarctic Survey has been usefully cited to knock down alarmist claims.

How Much Human-Caused Global Warming Should We Expect with Business-As-Usual (BAU) Climate Policies? A Semi-Empirical Assessment

by Ronan Connolly[SUP] 1,2,*[/SUP],Michael Connolly[SUP] 1[/SUP],Robert M. Carter[SUP] 3,†[/SUP] andWillie Soon[SUP] 2[/SUP]


[SUP]1[/SUP]
Independent Scientist, Dublin D11, Ireland

[SUP]2[/SUP]
Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), Salem, MA 01970, USA

[SUP]3[/SUP]
Independent Scientist, Townsville, QLD 4000, Australia

[SUP]*[/SUP]
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

[SUP]†[/SUP]
Robert M. Carter was a retired professor and independent scientist, but passed away on 19 January 2016.

Energies 2020, 13(6), 1365; Energies | Free Full-Text | How Much Human-Caused Global Warming Should We Expect with Business-As-Usual (BAU) Climate Policies? A Semi-Empirical Assessment
Received: 17 February 2020 / Revised: 9 March 2020 / Accepted: 11 March 2020 / Published: 15 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Economic Development and Energy Policy)
View Full-Text Download PDF Browse Figures

Review Reports


Abstract


In order to assess the merits of national climate change mitigation policies, it is important to have a reasonable benchmark for how much human-caused global warming would occur over the coming century with “Business-As-Usual” (BAU) conditions. However, currently, policymakers are limited to making assessments by comparing the Global Climate Model (GCM) projections of future climate change under various different “scenarios”, none of which are explicitly defined as BAU. Moreover, all of these estimates are ab initio computer model projections, and policymakers do not currently have equivalent empirically derived estimates for comparison. Therefore, estimates of the total future human-caused global warming from the three main greenhouse gases of concern (CO[SUB]2[/SUB], CH[SUB]4[/SUB], and N[SUB]2[/SUB]O) up to 2100 are here derived for BAU conditions. A semi-empirical approach is used that allows direct comparisons between GCM-based estimates and empirically derived estimates. If the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases implies a Transient Climate Response (TCR) of ≥ 2.5 °C or an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of ≥ 5.0 °C then the 2015 Paris Agreement’s target of keeping human-caused global warming below 2.0 °C will have been broken by the middle of the century under BAU. However, for a TCR < 1.5 °C or ECS < 2.0 °C, the target would not be broken under BAU until the 22nd century or later. Therefore, the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “likely” range estimates for TCR of 1.0 to 2.5 °C and ECS of 1.5 to 4.5 °C have not yet established if human-caused global warming is a 21st century problem. View Full-Text
Keywords: climate change mitigation; climate sensitivity; airborne fraction; Paris Agreement; climate policies; business-as-usual
▼ Show Figures


​
 

A peer reviewed paper is easily ignored....a hundred are not.


The evidence for AGW is overwhelming
 
I guess one thing a person can ask is, is a 2C warming of the planet a benefit or a disaster. there are those who see it both ways. Since the ending of the last ice age the planet has warmed 12 degrees F, was that a benefit or a disaster? I guess if you were a Wooly Mammoth is was a disaster, if you are a human I think it would have been a benefit. Just be glad that our current society and politics were not around 10,000 years ago because we would have been dealing with the issue of preventing the mile thick ice sheets from melting across North America.
 
Interesting that such a resounding refutation of the concept of "settled science" should elicit little or no reaction from the alarmists.
 
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[h=1]Climate Change – Ebb and Flow of the Tide Part 1 of 3[/h][FONT=&quot]Emotional, agenda-driven politics confronts sound, evidence-based science Dr Kelvin Kemm The topic of global warming and climate change is far more scientifically complex than the public is led to believe. Myriads of newspaper, magazine and TV items over decades have tended to simplify the science to the point at which the general public believes that…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Interesting new paper generates significantly lower climate sensitivity estimates when models are constrained by observational data [link]
 
[h=2]A New 1796-2013 Greenland Reconstruction Shows It Was Warmer In The 1920s-1940s – And No Hockey Sticks[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 6. April 2020
Share this...


[h=4]A new reconstruction for SE Greenland (1796-2013) shows temperatures have risen and fallen without any hockey-stick-like trajectories for the last 200+ years. Temperatures were warmer than today in the 1920s and 1940s and even briefly during the 1800s.[/h]If rising CO2 concentrations are a driver of Arctic warming, the 19th and 20th centuries should presumably have been much colder than today.
A new study (Wangner et al., 2020) instead finds there were:
(a) warming and cooling episodes of multiple degrees per decade throughout the last ~215 years in southeast Greenland;
(b) decadal periods in the 1800s were occasionally warmer than 2013; and
(c) more sustained warming in the 1920s and 1940s than during the 21st century.

[h=6]Image Source: Wangner et al., 2020[/h]
 
Another weakness in climate models:

[FONT=&quot] Carbon soot / Climate Models[/FONT]
[h=1]Science team points out a new failure of climate models[/h][FONT=&quot]From Nature Climate Change: Ill-sooted models by Baird Langenbrunner Atmospheric black carbon (BC) or soot — formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuel and biomass — causes warming by absorbing sunlight and enhancing the direct radiative forcing of the climate. As BC ages, it is coated with material due to gas condensation and…
[/FONT]
 

Thank-you once again for some good links within WUWT.

The deniers of science will scoff at you linking WUWT, once again, but the PNAS article it links is good. It will bring the climate sciences closer to taking the religion and politics out of science.

For those who read pictures:

 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Article "By Guest Blogger."


LOL...
Click to expand...

Lauren Harper*is an intern in the Earth Institute communications department. She is a graduate student in the Environmental Science and Policy Program at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs.
 
vegas giants said:
Lauren Harper*is an intern in the Earth Institute communications department. She is a graduate student in the Environmental Science and Policy Program at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs.
Click to expand...

An intern.

LOL...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…