Why I am a “skeptic”

[Simpletruther]

The problem isn't that but that it makes no sense conducting studies across hundreds of years, only to find out that the problem wasn't so or that it's too late to deal with it.

That's why military forces, insurers, multinational banks, and other organizations have been issuing advice on the matter to their clients and personnel.

More important, skeptics, realizing the same logic, decided to conduct their own studies on the matter, and have come up with similar conclusions. More details in the previous post.

Why does it not make sense?

 

[longview]

Lewis's paper isn't peer-reviewed like Sherwood's is. From the Lewis paper:


Looks pal reviewed to me.

Sherwood is interesting, but makes some assumptions.
An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence

This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record. An S value lower than 2 K is difficult to reconcile with any of the three lines of evidence. The amount of cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence against values of S greater than 4.5 K.

So they claim feedback process, historical and paleoclimate records and the cooling during the last glacial Maximum.

 

[jmotivator]

If they don't understand the dials well enough, shouldn't we stop ****ing with them?

Well, no, because until you understand the dials you wouldn't know if turning them helped or hurt... or really even what helping and hurting looks like.

The Great Barrier Reef is a prime example. The "consensus" for a generation had been that "global warming" was bleaching the GBR, so all of the fight was to lower emissions to save the reef. In the end the dial that needed to be turned was coastal Queensland farm fertilizer run off, not CO2. They lost 20 years of reef growth thinking that they were doing good when in fact they were distracting from the actual problem.

We spent 20 years trying to save the polar bears, throwing billions in advertising to drive trillions in lost economic growth to save the poster child for the Climate Crisis, the polar bear when, in reality, the polar bears weren't even threatened... it turned out their population crisis was solved back in the 70s and the real problem was a couple of scientists that didn't know how to count and a bunch more who never questioned that study because it would challenge climate orthodoxy.

There's the old story of the bungling of Yellowstone park preservation where the conservationists, sure that they new all of the dials that controlled the conifer, deer, beaver and wolf populations, nearly made each of those groups extinct by turning dials they didn't understand.

The wild fires in California are more a function of trying too hard to prevent fires than anything else. California land management allowed dry brush and tinder to build up in forests that would normally, in a natural setting, be periodically cleared through natural wildfires. What California created was unnaturally volatile stretches of forest instead.

And over and over and over.

All evidence points to an aggregated boon to life of planet earth from higher levels of CO2, the greatest stretches of rapid evolution and wildlife spread in the paleo record happened when CO2 levels were in the thousands.

And that isn't even to say that CO2 drove those periods of rapid growth in flora and fauna, it just doesn't appear to have hurt it.

And in the end, the underlying conceit of the AGW movement is that life of planet earth shouldn't change. Species should go extinct, no matter how marginally they clung to an ecosystem, and nothing should ever change, but this is a condition that has never before existed, and would certainly never exist in the absense of humanity.

There are certainly clear times where the actions of man have adversely impacted the environment. The eradication of the buffalo in North America has had a long and detrimental impact on the environment, but even then, with time the environment finds a new normal for a time before some perfectly natural disaster will come around and force it to change again and I certainly wouldn't trust us to fix the issue.

 

[Deuce]

Well, no, because until you understand the dials you wouldn't know if turning them helped or hurt... or really even what helping and hurting looks like.

So we should assume it helps or does nothing? That's a very strange claim.

So, your position literally is "it's fine to turn the dial because we haven't conclusively proven it's a bad idea." Weird how few other areas of society you apply this to. And to make it weirder, you even cite multiple examples of us fiddling the dials with bad results. My dude. Pick a lane.

 

[iguanaman]

There are certainly clear times where the actions of man have adversely impacted the environment. The eradication of the buffalo in North America has had a long and detrimental impact on the environment, but even then, with time the environment finds a new normal for a time before some perfectly natural disaster will come around and force it to change again and I certainly wouldn't trust us to fix the issue.

LOL What an eloquent bunch of hooey. Polar bear survival depends on the ice flows which have been severely affected by warming. The bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef is caused mostly by warm temperature not fertilizer runoff. The wildfires in California were exacerbated by extreme drought conditions not mismanagement and most egregious of all there was no "boon" to most life forms from the high temperatures due to high CO2 levels. Life forms adapted to the new climate over 10's of 1000's of years a luxury we do not have in AGW and human beings have never existed with CO2 levels as high as they are today.

Although the Earth has seen countless fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels in the past, most of them have been at rates at which organisms have been able to adapt and evolve to climate change. This is less likely at today’s rapid pace of warming.
“The rate of change that we are experiencing today because of human-driven greenhouse gas emissions is among the very highest that the Earth has ever seen,” said Olsen. “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are normal states for our planet. Our current lower state is unusual. Yet, it is this rate of change that is the most important.”
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2...-when-co2-was-extremely-high-why-cant-humans/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/aust...urveyed a total,multiple reefs in all regions.

Two-thirds of the world's polar bears could be extinct by 2050 if greenhouse gas-fueled global warming keeps melting their Arctic sea-ice habitat. The Center has led the charge to save polar bears from extinction.
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/polar_bear/index.html#:~:text=Two%2Dthirds%20of%20the%20world's,their%20Arctic%20sea%2Dice%20habitat.&text=The%20Center%20has%20led%20the%20charge%20to%20save%20polar%20bears%20from%20extinction.

Study Finds Climate Change to Blame For Record-Breaking California Wildfires​

Environmental observations indicate that summer burned areas in northern and central California have increased fivefold during 1996 to 2021 compared to 1971 to 1995. Further, 10 of the largest California wildfires have occurred in the last 20 years—five of which occurred in 2020 alone. While higher temperatures and increased dryness are thought to be the leading causes of increased burned areas, the extent to which burned area changes are due to natural variability or human-caused climate change has remained largely unresolved.
In a new NIDIS-funded study in Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, an international group of researchers created a climate-driven model of summer burned area evolution in California and combined it with natural and historical climate simulations to assess the importance of human-caused climate change on increased burned areas.
It was found that nearly all the observed increase in burned areas over the past half-century is due to human-caused climate change. It is estimated that from 1971 to 2021, human-caused climate change contributed to a +172% increase in burned areas, with a +320% increase from 1996 to 2021. In the coming decades, a further increase in annual forest burned areas is expected, ranging from 3% to 52%.

https://www.drought.gov/news/study-... found that nearly,increase from 1996 to 2021.

 

[jmotivator]

So we should assume it helps or does nothing? That's a very strange claim.

We shouldn't assume we are helping or hurting until we understand it. If we don't understand it then we could be hurting or helping. I would argue that some time in the future we will see that this focus on CO2 and global warming has consumed far more resources than are warranted and only distracted from actual emergent crises.

Short of a full understanding it's like cracking open a person's skull and massaging their brain because they fainted and you felt you had to do something.

So, your position literally is "it's fine to turn the dial because we haven't conclusively proven it's a bad idea."

Well, no, you presume a direct connection between CO2, climate and catastrophe which is unproven (we can prove CO2 effects climate, we can show that climate related catastrophes can happen... but we can't connect the two) and I am arguing the proven connection between increased energy cost an quality of life at every economic level across the globe.

It's a case of well documented costs for a theoretical benefit.

Weird how few other areas of society you apply this to. And to make it weirder, you even cite multiple examples of us fiddling the dials with bad results. My dude. Pick a lane.

I don't? The whole point of conservatism is to not **** with the status quo if you don't understand why it's the status quo and what that change would do.

Conservatism is the ideology of Chesterton's Fence, be it technical, political or social.

 

[iguanaman]

We shouldn't assume we are helping or hurting until we understand it. If we don't understand it then we could be hurting or helping. I would argue that some time in the future we will see that this focus on CO2 and global warming has consumed far more resources than are warranted and only distracted from actual emergent crises.

Short of a full understanding it's like cracking open a person's skull and massaging their brain because they fainted and you felt you had to do something.



Well, no, you presume a direct connection between CO2, climate and catastrophe which is unproven (we can prove CO2 effects climate, we can show that climate related catastrophes can happen... but we can't connect the two) and I am arguing the proven connection between increased energy cost an quality of life at every economic level across the globe.

It's a case of well documented costs for a theoretical benefit.



I don't? The whole point of conservatism is to not **** with the status quo if you don't understand why it's the status quo and what that change would do.

Conservatism is the ideology of Chesterton's Fence, be it technical, political or social.

Yes who knows if digging up and releasing fossil carbon sequestered over millions of years after the last CO2 caused mass extinction is a bad thing. Mass extinction might be just what the planet needs now and in a few million years things will be better.

Mass Extinctions and Their Relationship With Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration: Implications for Earth's Future​

Atmospheric CO2 is therefore a plausible cause of past mass extinctions, while long-term temperature change and RF by CO2 are excluded. Biodiversity and atmospheric CO2 cycle at periods similar to each other and to geological and astrophysical cycles, consistent with causal linkages.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley...efore,cycles, consistent with causal linkages.

 

[Simpletruther]

We shouldn't assume we are helping or hurting until we understand it. If we don't understand it then we could be hurting or helping. I would argue that some time in the future we will see that this focus on CO2 and global warming has consumed far more resources than are warranted and only distracted from actual emergent crises.

Short of a full understanding it's like cracking open a person's skull and massaging their brain because they fainted and you felt you had to do something.



Well, no, you presume a direct connection between CO2, climate and catastrophe which is unproven (we can prove CO2 effects climate, we can show that climate related catastrophes can happen... but we can't connect the two) and I am arguing the proven connection between increased energy cost an quality of life at every economic level across the globe.

It's a case of well documented costs for a theoretical benefit.



I don't? The whole point of conservatism is to not **** with the status quo if you don't understand why it's the status quo and what that change would do.

Conservatism is the ideology of Chesterton's Fence, be it technical, political or social.

This is very close to the way I look at it.

 

[longview]

Yes who knows if digging up and releasing fossil carbon sequestered over millions of years after the last CO2 caused mass extinction is a bad thing. Mass extinction might be just what the planet needs now and in a few million years things will be better.

Mass Extinctions and Their Relationship With Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration: Implications for Earth's Future​

Atmospheric CO2 is therefore a plausible cause of past mass extinctions, while long-term temperature change and RF by CO2 are excluded. Biodiversity and atmospheric CO2 cycle at periods similar to each other and to geological and astrophysical cycles, consistent with causal linkages.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022EF003336#:~:text=Atmospheric CO2 is therefore,cycles, consistent with causal linkages.

What does the word plausible mean? it does not mean any kind of certainty, yet you say it is a bad thing with certainty.

 

[Luce]

I am not skeptical of the basic climate science that man is causing most of the recent warming.

I am skeptical though of the accuracy of climate models as of now. I think results speak volumes. And since climate modeling deals with long time periods, we just don’t have enough successful samples. In fsct we don’t even really have one yet, if we consider about 50 years to be a minimal sample size of model prediction is success.

I would like to see at minimum 4 or 5 successful 50 year periods of reasonably accurate model predictive success to be confident Thst models have a handle on things.


The short term success of models so far is ok. But from past reading the error range was pretty wide. So that takes away from usefulness obviously.


I know they plug models in for the past and all, that just doesn’t give me confidence.

Doesn't matter. It's too late.

 

[iguanaman]

What does the word plausible mean? it does not mean any kind of certainty, yet you say it is a bad thing with certainty.

Read the paper. The extinctions have already started.

 

[iguanaman]

Doesn't matter. It's too late.

Too late to stop turning up earth's thermostat? Hardly. It is never too late for that.

CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature​

A study by GISS climate scientists recently published in the journal Science shows that atmospheric CO2 operates as a thermostat to control the temperature of Earth.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2010_lacis_01/

 

[Simpletruther]

Doesn't matter. It's too late.

Too late for what?

 

[longview]

Read the paper. The extinctions have already started.

Extinctions are always happening.
The study said this.

• Past mass extinctions are correlated with atmospheric CO2 concentration, but not with long-term temperature nor radiative forcing by CO2

Correlation is not causation.

 

[Luce]

Too late to keep turning up earth's thermostat? Hardly. It is never too late for that.

The point of no return lies between 300 and 400 PPM. We passed 400 almost 10 years ago, and now we're stuck in a feedback loop. Even if we suddenly turned everything off and dealt with losing 90% of the human race, the heat would still continue climbing, since the present level of warming is releasing methane from the ocean floors and the permafrost, and methane is the king-hell greenhouse gas.

So it's too late.

 

[Luce]

Too late for what?

Too late to stop climate change.

 

[longview]

The point of no return lies between 300 and 400 PPM. We passed 400 almost 10 years ago, and now we're stuck in a feedback loop. Even if we suddenly turned everything off and dealt with losing 90% of the human race, the heat would still continue climbing, since the present level of warming is releasing methane from the ocean floors and the permafrost, and methane is the king-hell greenhouse gas.

So it's too late.

So why did this not happen in the last interglacial period, where it was several degrees warmer?
The feedback loops respond to temperature changes not CO2 levels.

 

[jmotivator]

LOL What an eloquent bunch of hooey. Polar bear survival depends on the ice flows which have been severely affected by warming.

This is false, polarbears only "rely" of ice flows because they have to. This is also a polar bear's habitat:



The loss of ice flows would actually be worse on the seal population because hunting seals on the shore is infinitely easier than hunting them on an ice flow.

The bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef is caused mostly by warm temperature not fertilizer runoff.

This is patently false. Not long ago the government of Australia started a program to curtail farm run off in Queensland when it was learned that the Crown of Thorns starfish flourished in the fertilizer rich water.

Since controlling the fertilizer run off the GBR has rebounded quickly.

The wildfires in California were exacerbated by extreme drought conditions

Nope. California was mostly a desert before European settlers showed up, drought was a regular occurrence. Back then, however, fires still happens, old dry brush and branches would burn away and the cycle would start again. Fire is so common in California throughout geological history that it is home to many pyrophytic plant species (plants that require fire in order to germinate).

By fighting wildfires but not clearning brush that would have been eliminated by the fires you are preventing all you do is create a build up of fire-starter that ensures that when the fire does happen it will be bigger than you want it to be.

Two-thirds of the world's polar bears could be extinct by 2050 if greenhouse gas-fueled global warming keeps melting their Arctic sea-ice habitat. The Center has led the charge to save polar bears from extinction.
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/polar_bear/index.html#:~:text=Two%2Dthirds%20of%20the%20world's,their%20Arctic%20sea%2Dice%20habitat.&text=The%20Center%20has%20led%20the%20charge%20to%20save%20polar%20bears%20from%20extinction.

This is an absolute lie. The Polar bear population is increasing, not decreasing.

Here is a funny bit of stupid propaganda that you would probably read without questioning:

Fact check: False claim global polar bear population has increased in recent decades

Scientists say polar bear population data reflects their improved ability to track bears, not a major increase in the number of bears.

www.usatoday.com

Can you spot the problem with their argument?

Study Finds Climate Change to Blame For Record-Breaking California Wildfires

https://www.drought.gov/news/study-finds-climate-change-blame-record-breaking-california-wildfires-2023-08-08#:~:text=It was found that nearly,increase from 1996 to 2021.

.. except it's not.

Fire experts say mismanaged, choked forests need to be cleared out

“Forest management is a lot like gardening. You have to keep the forest open and thin," said Mike Rogers, a former Angeles National Forest supervisor.

www.nbcnews.com

As far as the paleo CO2/Climate record:

The paleo CO2 record has nowhere near the temporal precision to show decadal or even century precision beyond the last interglacial, rendering any argument on change rate pointless as you have no apples to compare to your chosen apple.

Most of the species alive today have lived through higher CO2 concentrations over the last 300,000+ years. The Polar bear species is actually fairly young, entering the fossil record, ironically, at the tail end of a glacial cycle 150,000 years ago, and surviving the rapid interglacial warming of the following century.

The assertion that raising CO2 by even 100% over a matter of a few centuries being to fast for species to adapt of pure lunacy. Again, most of the species alive today already have proven they can survive in higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures.

 

[bomberfox]

I even take, for what it is worth, the numbers from the IPCC's predictions of climate.

I then ask for some sort of examination of any place in the world and any single bad thing from the slight warming predicted. I never get any decent answer as to what the catastrophe is supposed to be.

We’re already experiencing worldwide droughts because of it.

 

[bomberfox]

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 already are better. **** coal is the most inefficient source out there and droughts caused by climate change is ending our hydroelectric time. We survived ending the horse and buggy and introduced cars before the infrastructure for them was even built.

 

[bomberfox]

No.

The industry that is research into renewables is one of milking governemts for endless grants. All those who work in it would be out of a job if anybody ever makes a solution.

All funding for inventors is already close to new entries. The filters are locked down to stop any advancement.

Fossil fuels get government subsidies and grants and protection of their property by the us military. Spare me…

 

[bomberfox]

"slightly warmer".... that's not specific. That leaves you to say "oh, I meant only a 1 degree increase" blah blah.

The issue here is what you don't know. A slightly warmer world might not do much. But the impact of that slightly warmer world might lead to something else, and then that might then do something unpredictable.

We simply don't know what could happen.


But we can see. A slightly warmer world can lead to ice melting.

Sea level rise, facts and information

"Average sea levels have swelled over 8 inches (about 23 cm) since 1880, with about three of those inches gained in the last 25 years. Every year, the sea rises another .13 inches (3.2 mm)."

Rise in Global Temps Since 1880 | Climate Central

In that time temperatures have risen over 1 degree Fahrenheit. So, if we get 23 cm rise in oceans for every one degree, what's the impact?

The impact on humans could be great simply because of where people live. It might not make the world an unlivable place. But it might cause war. China has a massive population in such areas. The US too.

The biggest impact is when flooding happens. The water doesn't need to be there all the time. The threat of massive floods forces humans to adapt. Does it then become uneconomical to live in such places? So where do the people go? How does this impact us?

We're already strained. The amount of agricultural land is not at the limits yet, but if the amount of land is reduced, then what? Stop eating meat so that land can be used for crops? The more people there are, the more room they need to live in, the more likely we are to cut down the trees. Or do we protect the rain forests? Or do we cut them down to live in?

It's like a recipe for disaster. So many things would be happening simultaneously, the just the impact of unknown change could cause wars and massive migration.

These are average temperatures meaning also already hot climates will be getting worse and other environments might be getting a bigger rise.

 

[longview]

We’re already experiencing worldwide droughts because of it.

I think rainfall numbers are up slightly globally.
Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Precipitation

Key Points​

• On average, total annual precipitation has increased over land areas in the United States and worldwide (see Figures 1 and 2). Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.04 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.20 inches per decade.

 

[jmotivator]

They already are better. **** coal is the most inefficient source out there and droughts caused by climate change is ending our hydroelectric time. We survived ending the horse and buggy and introduced cars before the infrastructure for them was even built.

"There's never been droughts before!" say people in California who live in a state that was a desert until settlers dug showed up, dug canals and irrigated the dry soil.

The emptying of the California aquifer has more to do with the increased harnessing of the aquifer by a growing population than it does to drought. The state of California should have invested money in building reservoirs to capture the rain rather than the bullet train...

What they did for years was empty reservoirs instead...

California Reservoirs Are Dumping Water in a Drought, But Science Could Change That | KQED

Advanced weather models could remove some of the guesswork and leave more water behind dams.

www.kqed.org

 

[iguanaman]

This is false, polarbears only "rely" of ice flows because they have to. This is also a polar bear's habitat:

View attachment 67469544

The loss of ice flows would actually be worse on the seal population because hunting seals on the shore is infinitely easier than hunting them on an ice flow.



This is patently false. Not long ago the government of Australia started a program to curtail farm run off in Queensland when it was learned that the Crown of Thorns starfish flourished in the fertilizer rich water.

Since controlling the fertilizer run off the GBR has rebounded quickly.



Nope. California was mostly a desert before European settlers showed up, drought was a regular occurrence. Back then, however, fires still happens, old dry brush and branches would burn away and the cycle would start again. Fire is so common in California throughout geological history that it is home to many pyrophytic plant species (plants that require fire in order to germinate).

By fighting wildfires but not clearning brush that would have been eliminated by the fires you are preventing all you do is create a build up of fire-starter that ensures that when the fire does happen it will be bigger than you want it to be.



This is an absolute lie. The Polar bear population is increasing, not decreasing.

Here is a funny bit of stupid propaganda that you would probably read without questioning:

Fact check: False claim global polar bear population has increased in recent decades

Scientists say polar bear population data reflects their improved ability to track bears, not a major increase in the number of bears.

www.usatoday.com

Can you spot the problem with their argument?



.. except it's not.

Fire experts say mismanaged, choked forests need to be cleared out

“Forest management is a lot like gardening. You have to keep the forest open and thin," said Mike Rogers, a former Angeles National Forest supervisor.

www.nbcnews.com

As far as the paleo CO2/Climate record:

The paleo CO2 record has nowhere near the temporal precision to show decadal or even century precision beyond the last interglacial, rendering any argument on change rate pointless as you have no apples to compare to your chosen apple.

Most of the species alive today have lived through higher CO2 concentrations over the last 300,000+ years. The Polar bear species is actually fairly young, entering the fossil record, ironically, at the tail end of a glacial cycle 150,000 years ago, and surviving the rapid interglacial warming of the following century.

The assertion that raising CO2 by even 100% over a matter of a few centuries being to fast for species to adapt of pure lunacy. Again, most of the species alive today already have proven they can survive in higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures.

LOL What a stupid picture. How can polar bears get the calories they need to survive on flowers? You really don't think very much do you? Polar bears hunt seals on the ice and without that food source they are doomed. They cannot hunt them from the shore because seals don't come to shore to breathe like they come to ice holes to breathe where the polar bears ambush them.
Q: What does the science say about polar bear numbers? Are their populations increasing or decreasing?
"There are 19 populations across the Arctic with 19 different stories, but the worldwide average is not increasing. Some populations have experienced steep declines while others have rebounded a little after their numbers were vastly reduced by hunting, but that increase is likely to be reversed as the sea ice melts."
https://polarbearsinternational.org/news-media/articles/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing

Also CO2 has not been this high since the Pliocene era when horses and camels lived in the arctic regions and the seas were 30 feet higher than today.

Back to the Pliocene?
In a way, 400 ppm is an arbitrary milestone, like a .400 batting average in baseball. But the fact that no one has batted .400 since Ted Williams in 1941 still says something important about baseball. The same goes for CO2 in Earth's atmosphere.
The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 million and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn't exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years. That's how far back scientists have been able to measure CO2 directly in bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice cores.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/climate-milestone-earths-co2-level-passes-400-ppm/