Why I am a “skeptic”

[bubbabgone]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic”

sigh

Your inability to read the graph is not helping you here. The red line is the prediction, and it starts in 1967. There was no "warming pause" in 2000. Both should be screamingly obvious from the graph.

Anyway.... The model was not designed to provide a 100% accurate year-by-year prediction from 1967 to 2017. Nor did it make any such claim.

In fact, none of the models make claims like that. They aren't making 10-day weather forecasts, they are predicting long-term trends. As a result, they don't usually include events like volcanic eruptions or ENSOs that can have effects for up to a decade. They're looking at long-term trends.

The model specifically predicts that "if CO2 PPM doubles from 300ppm to 600ppm, we will see 2.3C of warming." The rise in CO2 and the rise in temperatures we've seen over the past 50 years fits that prediction very well.

Furthermore, wasn't CO2 increasing from 1940 to 1970?

 

[Simpletruther]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic”

It was the third assessment report in 2001, it mostly seems to have dropped off the map, but sections are still cited in AR5.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/09/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf

The section I am citing was also in a paper called (Baede et al., 2001),
The link used to be,
Page not found (404) |
GRID-Arendal
but that has not worked in over a year.

I wonder if they avoid publishing now uncertainly ranges because of skeptics critiques.

 

[longview]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic�

I wonder if they avoid publishing now uncertainly ranges because of skeptics critiques.

No, the same uncertainty range was published in the last IPCC report (1.5 to 4.5 C).
The insistence, is that the likely ECS is in the middle of the range,
even though the the report did not issue a best estimate of ECS.
One thing that is interesting is then many of the lead authors of the science portion of AR5,
published an article with their findings, that got lost on the edit room floor.
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_1752487_5/component/file_1963877/content

The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C

 

[Slavister]

The worst that can happen is we spend trillions of dollars up a hogs butte for nothing

Not for nothing. For transitioning to renewable energy source, which has to be done sooner or later anyway.

and billions of poor people suffer even more becasue of overall wealth decline.

What wealth decline? You mean from all those infrastructure jobs in renewable energy sector?

 

[Terryj]

So the science of greenhouse gases means nothing to you? There is no need for model when you have basic chemistry. More CO2 means more heat from the sun that is trapped. Due to record high CO2 levels we are trapping more heat than we lose so the temperature keeps rising. How many record highs do you need to see that?

The past five years have each now ranked among the five warmest on record. According to NASA, 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2000. The warming of the planet is unambiguous and irrefutable.


Congratulations, You Just Survived The 5 Hottest Years on Record

Water vapor traps far more heat than CO2 on the order of 25-50%, water vapor is not caused from .04% of Co2 in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a direct result from the heating from the sun.

As for it being the hottest 5 years on record, that the problem, how long have we been keeping records? When you look at climate through a narrow perspective you get a distorted perspective and Dr. Mann proved that point with his "now famous hockey stick" graph. When you look at the Earths climate in perspective of 10's of thousands of years you will find the the Earth is cooler today than in the past. The Earth's average temp today is about 54 degrees whereas in the past it was around 72 degrees. CO2 levels could be higher, double from what they are now, this will cause a deeper greening of the planet and flora and fauna should thrive under these conditions. Why should we have a greener Earth, why should we have plants with increasing yields, just wondering.

 

[iguanaman]

Water vapor traps far more heat than CO2 on the order of 25-50%, water vapor is not caused from .04% of Co2 in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a direct result from the heating from the sun.

Yea that is correct, although water vapor also reflects heat energy away. How would you go about limiting the amount of water vapor in the air? CO2 adds to the water vapor and the earth is now trapping more heat than we lose so we are getting warmer. We have control of how much fossil carbon we release not how much water vapor get into the air.

 

[longview]

Yea that is correct, although water vapor also reflects heat energy away. How would you go about limiting the amount of water vapor in the air? CO2 adds to the water vapor and the earth is now trapping more heat than we lose so we are getting warmer. We have control of how much fossil carbon we release not how much water vapor get into the air.

I think most people agree that adding CO2 can cause some warming,
but the warming from CO2 alone is minor, at roughly 1.1 C for doubling the CO2 level.
What is in question, and not in evidence, is how the climate will respond to the warming perturbation
caused from the added CO2?
The Current IPCC position is that the feedbacks will produce additional warming of between .4 and 3.4 C.
Some studies like Richard Lindzen's suggest the feedback may be negative.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
Others like the lead authors of the last IPCC report, think it is slightly positive.
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_1752487_5/component/file_1963877/content
What we do know is that added CO2 seems to make the climate behave like overcast days and nights.
The diurnal temperature range gets smaller, because the the highs do not go as high, and the lows do not go as low.
The bulk of the average temperature increase is from night and winter lows not going as low.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.4688

Here, we review the observed diurnal asymmetry in the global warming trend:
the night‐time temperatures have increased more rapidly than day‐time temperatures.

There has been a reduction in the diurnal temperature range (DTR = Tmax − Tmin)
during the 20th century due to the more rapid warming of the Tmin than the Tmax
(Karl et al., 1993; Braganza et al., 2003; Vose et al., 2005; Alexander et al., 2006).

 

[Simpletruther]

Not for nothing. For transitioning to renewable energy source, which has to be done sooner or later anyway.



What wealth decline? You mean from all those infrastructure jobs in renewable energy sector?

If remnewables are not as cheap, then there is a wealth decline. If they are cheaper, then we will move to them becasue people like more wealth. It will happen on its own. If it’s not happening for fast enough, it means it’s not as cheap. Thst is the way thigs usually work.

 

[Slavister]

If remnewables are not as cheap, then there is a wealth decline. If they are cheaper, then we will move to them becasue people like more wealth. It will happen on its own. If it’s not happening for fast enough, it means it’s not as cheap. Thst is the way thigs usually work.

They get cheaper with research and with scale. Which for-profit company would be interested in taking the risks and researching these and doing it on scale without government subsidies? NONE. Yet the whole reason these technologies are getting cheaper and cheaper every day is BECAUSE of all the global warming stuff, public awareness and desire for these, and government subsidies (as well as research) as a result.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Not for nothing. For transitioning to renewable energy source, which has to be done sooner or later anyway.



What wealth decline? You mean from all those infrastructure jobs in renewable energy sector?

Why do you think that we need to transition to energy production methods before they are better than the ones we have now? Do you know how much oil and coal there is in the world?

 

[Simpletruther]

They get cheaper with research and with scale. Which for-profit company would be interested in taking the risks and researching these and doing it on scale without government subsidies? NONE. Yet the whole reason these technologies are getting cheaper and cheaper every day is BECAUSE of all the global warming stuff, public awareness and desire for these, and government subsidies (as well as research) as a result.

The thing is venture capitalists long to be first in a tech. The same question you ask could be asked of smart phones. Yet, we have smart phones, becasue they will take the chance if they think it has a reasonable opportunity for success.

There are literally billions upon billions ready and willing to plunge into mass scale renewables, billionshave slready been spent on research, and apparently its. Just not as cheap yet or they would be mass producing over fossils.

I suspect it will never be nearly as cheap, excluding nuclear. Imagine try g to produce all the components for wind and solar etc, without fossil fuels, giant mining operations with no fossil fuels, giant factories with no fossil fuels, making plastics with no fossil fuels, etc.
The future is probably going to be a lot poorer for most folks eventually.

 

[longview]

The thing is venture capitalists long to be first in a tech. The same question you ask could be asked of smart phones. Yet, we have smart phones, becasue they will take the chance if they think it has a reasonable opportunity for success.

There are literally billions upon billions ready and willing to plunge into mass scale renewables, billionshave slready been spent on research, and apparently its. Just not as cheap yet or they would be mass producing over fossils.

I suspect it will never be nearly as cheap, excluding nuclear. Imagine try g to produce all the components for wind and solar etc, without fossil fuels, giant mining operations with no fossil fuels, giant factories with no fossil fuels, making plastics with no fossil fuels, etc.
The future is probably going to be a lot poorer for most folks eventually.

I think Slavister is wrong about what companies will invest in.
Many paths lead to the same destination, and some of those paths are useful and profitable now, here is an example.
Access Denied
Shell has been perfecting gas to liquid fuel technology on a grand scale,
but the same back end technology, will be used, when we make man made fuels from hydrogen and carbon.
The other oil companies also have on going research, the oil companies know that there will still be a demand
for their product (A high density energy container) for many decades, and their role is to provide those fuels and make a profit.
Weather those fuels come from oil, or are made from hydrogen and carbon, is not important,
only that they have the product to sell.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: Climate Scientists’ “Apocalyptic Predictions Depend On Unrealistic Climate Model Simulations”[/h]By P Gosselin on 24. May 2019
Dutch investigative journalist Marijn Poels recently interviewed leading climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, see following video:

In the interview, Curry told that climate scientists have been acting “overconfident” and have been ignoring too many unknowns and all the uncertainty which the science is fraught with.
“There”s a lot of scope for people to be wrong” concerning the future of what the climate might be like, she said.
Climate scientists ignoring wide scope of natural factors
She tells viewers that the scientists were contracted to be “narrowly focused” on man’s impact and thus ended up ignoring “what may be the most important factors”, such as solar and oceanic cycles.
Unrealistic climate models

She also called the climate models “very ambiguous” and characterized the IPCC business-as-usual scenario as being based on “flawed projections” and “unrealistic assumptions” and that the other climate models “seem to be running too hot”.
She said, “The apocalyptic predictions depend on unrealistic emissions scenarios and unrealistic climate model simulations.”
She adds that in the end “we are left with a modest amount of warming that may be counteracted by natural variability.”
Greatest risks stem more from natural factors
She calls the West Antarctic Ice Sheet the factor that poses the greatest risk, but that CO2 has little impact on it. Rather, it’s the geological instability below it that is the biggest factor. A collapse could potentially lead to a meter of sea level rise this century, she said.
Bullying a consensus
On why her climate colleagues turned against her, Curry said: “What really got to them was my criticism of the behavior of scientists. I saw them lacking in transparency. I saw them trying to sabotage people who disagreed with them. […] I spoke up and called them on it. That’s what the unforgiveable behavior was on my part.”
She said that what we have in climate science is “consensus enforcement” and that alternative views are simply shut out, and thus run contradictory to how science is supposed to work. Earlier she told a Congressional committee that scientists were “being bullied” into consensus.

 

[Simpletruther]

I think Slavister is wrong about what companies will invest in.
Many paths lead to the same destination, and some of those paths are useful and profitable now, here is an example.
Access Denied
Shell has been perfecting gas to liquid fuel technology on a grand scale,
but the same back end technology, will be used, when we make man made fuels from hydrogen and carbon.
The other oil companies also have on going research, the oil companies know that there will still be a demand
for their product (A high density energy container) for many decades, and their role is to provide those fuels and make a profit.
Weather those fuels come from oil, or are made from hydrogen and carbon, is not important,
only that they have the product to sell.

I thought hydrogen synthesis production gave little to know net energy gain.

 

[longview]

I thought hydrogen synthesis production gave little to know net energy gain.

None at all, it is simple energy storage, and cost an energy penalty,
but compared to simply loosing the energy as heat that might harm the electrical grid, it is still a good choice.

 

[Slavister]

Why do you think that we need to transition to energy production methods before they are better than the ones we have now? Do you know how much oil and coal there is in the world?

They are "better" until someone puts in dollars, time and effort into researching how green tech can be made "better". There is no reason to delay that research considering where we are at.

The thing is venture capitalists long to be first in a tech. The same question you ask could be asked of smart phones. Yet, we have smart phones, becasue they will take the chance if they think it has a reasonable opportunity for success.

Sorry, you are wrong: you would not have smartphones without government sponsored research.

There are literally billions upon billions ready and willing to plunge into mass scale renewables, billionshave slready been spent on research, and apparently its. Just not as cheap yet or they would be mass producing over fossils.

It took time but we are getting there...

New research shows that, in the long-run, renewable energy is more cost effective than non-renewable energy. Company Lazard considered costs over the lifespan of energy projects and found wind and utility-scale solar can be the least expensive energy generating sources. As of 2017, the cost (before tax credits that would further drop the costs) of wind power was $30-60 per megawatt-hour (a measure of energy). Large-scale solar costs are $43-53/MWh. For comparison: energy from the most efficient type of natural gas plants costs $42-78/MWh. Coal power costs at least $60/MWh.

...

Although renewable energy is growing, it still needs extra investment up front in comparison to non-renewable energy. Many countries—and individuals—see the benefit of investing now for a more sustainable and greener future.

 

[Simpletruther]

They are "better" until someone puts in dollars, time and effort into researching how green tech can be made "better". There is no reason to delay that research considering where we are at.



Sorry, you are wrong: you would not have smartphones without government sponsored research.






It took time but we are getting there...

Just to add that I do not oppose university research. I would just question highly unusual amounts of new money for it. It takes time, resources and manpower to do research. Too much money thrown st it only drive so costs up, rather producing much more useful research beyond a certain point.

 

[Simpletruther]

None at all, it is simple energy storage, and cost an energy penalty,
but compared to simply loosing the energy as heat that might harm the electrical grid, it is still a good choice.

It seems to me if extracting hydrogen from water yields a net energy gain, we have unlimited cheap energy. Why do I not hear about that?

 

[Slavister]

Just to add that I do not oppose university research. I would just question highly unusual amounts of new money for it. It takes time, resources and manpower to do research. Too much money thrown st it only drive so costs up, rather producing much more useful research beyond a certain point.

I am glad I could move you from

It will happen on its own. If it’s not happening for fast enough, it means it’s not as cheap.

to accepting government's role in developing these. As for not doing it wastefully, I doubt anyone would disagree.

 

[Deuce]

It seems to me if extracting hydrogen from water yields a net energy gain, we have unlimited cheap energy. Why do I not hear about that?

He literally just told you there is an energy penalty, not a net energy gain.

You should ask yourself this question: if even such basic facts escape you, is your assessment of climate change science really something to rely on? Like, I don't know squat about medicine or medical research. So if I said "I'm skeptical that radiation is an appropriate treatment for cancer and I think it needs more data" would you give a crap what I thought?

 

[Simpletruther]

He literally just told you there is an energy penalty, not a net energy gain.

You should ask yourself this question: if even such basic facts escape you, is your assessment of climate change science really something to rely on? Like, I don't know squat about medicine or medical research. So if I said "I'm skeptical that radiation is an appropriate treatment for cancer and I think it needs more data" would you give a crap what I thought?

Like you never misunderstood anything before that you normally don’t. This internet anonymity can have effects on people’s common civility. Think about that. Would you talk like Thst to someone in real life with someone just trying have a friendly Discussion?

 

[Simpletruther]

I am glad I could move you from



to accepting government's role in developing these. As for not doing it wastefully, I doubt anyone would disagree.

I haven’t moved. I simply meant On their own the way we typically do things. I was well aware universities do research. As opposed to upping investment drastically in university research etc. no need to change or increase research, at least not a whole lot.

 

[Deuce]

Like you never misunderstood anything before that you normally don’t. This internet anonymity can have effects on people’s common civility. Think about that. Would you talk like Thst to someone in real life with someone just trying have a friendly Discussion?

Yes, and in fact had almost exactly the same conversation with a coworker a few weeks ago.

Let me ask you this: do you believe scientists have a thorough grasp of all the intricacies of how the earth's climate works and the ramifications of "fiddling with the dials?"

 

[Simpletruther]

Yes, and in fact had almost exactly the same conversation with a coworker a few weeks ago.

Let me ask you this: do you believe scientists have a thorough grasp of all the intricacies of how the earth's climate works and the ramifications of "fiddling with the dials?"

In this conversation, we’re you rude to them Like just were to me?

But yes, to your question.

 

[Deuce]

In this conversation, we’re you rude to them Like just were to me?

But yes, to your question.

So if they understand how the climate works sufficiently to make these claims, why don't you believe them when they say this is a problem we need to take care of?