Major Study Rules Out Super-High and Low Climate Sensitivity To CO2 (arstechnica.com) 140
Scott K. Johnson writes via Ars Technica: One of the most important numbers in climate science is 3C. This isn't about a projection of future warming or the impacts that come with it, though. It's about how much warming you get if you double the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. That value can be made more general as a metric known as "climate sensitivity," which describes how much warming you get for a given amount of emissions. If the number is small, we can burn a lot of fossil fuels with minimal consequences. If the number is extremely high, emissions are extraordinarily dangerous. This number is commonly defined against a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the air, in part because CO2's effect is logarithmic and each doubling is roughly equivalent. Calculations of this value go back to the turn of the 20th century, when the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius came up with numbers in the 4-6C range. But a major milestone was reached in 1979, when a group of scientists released a climate report that included this value. The scientists wrote, "We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3C with a probable error of +/-1.5C."
Despite all the scientific progress since then, that answer (1.5-4.5ÂC) has held up. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report tightened it up a bit to 2.0-4.5C, but then a handful of studies released just before their 2013 report caused confusion that led to a return to the old 1.5-4.5C range. Shrinking that range has been a goal of climate scientists, though the problem has proved stubborn. In a notable step forward, a group of 25 climate scientists published a study this week that presents a new synthesis of the evidence. And they conclude that a narrower range is warranted.
Despite all the scientific progress since then, that answer (1.5-4.5ÂC) has held up. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report tightened it up a bit to 2.0-4.5C, but then a handful of studies released just before their 2013 report caused confusion that led to a return to the old 1.5-4.5C range. Shrinking that range has been a goal of climate scientists, though the problem has proved stubborn. In a notable step forward, a group of 25 climate scientists published a study this week that presents a new synthesis of the evidence. And they conclude that a narrower range is warranted.
0.55 C (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
See: https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
"Most of these models are long since obsolete, replaced by far more advanced generations. And yet, most of them were spot on in their projections of how much the Earth would warm in the years after they were published in response to greenhouse gas emissions. Fourteen out of 17 models were found to be accurate."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not rocket science. Its math.
Re: (Score:3)
the climate would have run away billions of years ago
It did. In both directions. We have had much warmer climates, no O2 and lots of CO2, no glaciers and temperate forests in Antarctica and an ice-covered earth. The climate is chaotic and for all we know, just a bit more CO2 and we might trigger the next ice age.
Re: (Score:3)
It did. In both directions. We have had much warmer climates, no O2 and lots of CO2, no glaciers and temperate forests in Antarctica and an ice-covered earth. The climate is chaotic and for all we know, just a bit more CO2 and we might trigger the next ice age.
One thing that tends to get ignored in scenarios like this is the amount of time that the planet took to get into a particular temperature state. While the statement "the Earth was much warmer once than it is today" is demonstrably true (almost the whole planet was covered in rain forest at that point), it doesn't bear any relevance to modern climate change as that state was achieved over hundreds of thousands of years, giving the ecosystem a chance to adapt. The main concern is not so much the warming, but
Re: (Score:2)
The last ice age lasted for 100,000 years. In total. The onset and ending of that ice age may have only taken a few hundred years. Perhaps as little as decades.
The whole slow and steady geological change theory has been debunked. Geological features that people assumed took millions of years to occur turn out to have been created in a matter of a few days or even hours.
Re:0.55 C (Score:4, Insightful)
The climate alarmists believe the climate warms directly by 1.1 C per doubling of CO2 concentration and that an indirect feedback multiplier of 3x gets applied to this warming. The climate skeptics believe that the climate warms directly by 1.1 C per doubling of CO2 concentration and that an indirect feedback multiplier of 0.5x gets applied to this warming. Even intuitively, if the feedback multiplier were >= 1, the climate would have run away billions of years ago. The skeptic model matches observed reality and the alarmist model does not. So, the alarmists try to manipulate the data to create the missing warming.
Yes if it weren't for 800,000 years of atmospheric co2 records in the ice cores your bullshit might have stood a chance. That and of course the fact that the industrial revolution only began 200 years ago.
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov... [lbl.gov].
Yup , atmospheric co2 levels are more than DOUBLE any peak in the last 800,000 years, just in the last 200 years.
Explain that shit away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This should scare you.
We are nowhere near equilibrium temperature yet. Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, it will take hundreds of years for the excess CO2 to be fully reabsorbed into the ocean and biosphere, and warming will continue that whole time. If a 100 ppm rise in CO2 resulted in a 10 degree temperature delta as your graph indicates, what will the current 200 ppm increase eventually do? It's pretty safe to say it will be more.
We know there are many different feedbacks, some of them reduce t
Artic Routes (Score:2)
Re:Artic Routes (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, lets just ignore that flooding of coastal cities, with 3m of sea level rise. We are already going to get 1.5m but 3m is a whole new order of chaos.
As you trap heat in, the temperature rise becomes more distributed and of course the greatest rise in temperature will be at the poles and the lowest rise of temperature will be at the equator.
So the average is something like 3.0 degrees but at the equator it is more like 1.5 and the poles it is more like 4.5, the scope for rise at the poles is much higher because you distributing trapped heat, rather than adding new heat which would be more evenly distributed.
Only psychopaths would ignore the destruction of global cities and pretend there is value in the artic that could ever replace it. The worst hit areas, the USA east coast, the entire east coast and sea level rise disaster. Japan, with all of it major coastal cities many on river delta flood planes. All those cities fronting the intermediate. All of South East Asia's coastal cities. Do you know who fares the best, Russian and China, they know it as well.
Those who did it will hang for crimes against humanity and forget about delusions of getting past that, too many flooded underwater coast front mac mansions. Greedy fuckers will want to make those responsible pay, whilst they claim they were not, 'directly' responsible (they get to wipe out and take the stuff of those directly responsible, laws will change to make it possible and crimes against humanity will be deployed).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$2.5 trillion over 80 years? Meh.
The funny part is that those are the numbers being used to sell the Green New Deal, which will cost something like 30-40x more than it's supposed to save.
Re: (Score:2)
So opening new Artic Routes are a certainty. Along with explotation of resources there. So southern maritime routes, as they're hotly contended now are not that important as they are now as they will on the future. The next frontier is the north. Let's talk about that, and leave the fear of other things to professional alarmist activists.
And yet in the last 200 years (since the industrial revolution) we have more than doubled the highest peak concentrations in more than 800,000 years.... there were many ice ages in the time..
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov... [lbl.gov].
Why repost "journalist" crap? (Score:5, Informative)
Why not post the "plain english summary" from the real effing article, submittard, instead of journo's ignorant interpretation thereof?
Earth's global “climate sensitivity” is a fundamental quantitative measure of the susceptibility of Earth's climate to human influence. A landmark report in 1979 concluded that it probably lies between 1.54.5C per doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, assuming that other influences on climate remain unchanged. In the 40 years since, it has appeared difficult to reduce this uncertainty range. In this report we thoroughly assess all lines of evidence including some new developments. We find that a large volume of consistent evidence now points to a more confident view of a climate sensitivity near the middle or upper part of this range. In particular, it now appears extremely unlikely that the climate sensitivity could be low enough to avoid substantial climate change (well in excess of 2C warming) under a highemissions future scenario. We remain unable to rule out that the sensitivity could be above 4.5C per doubling of carbon dioxide levels, although this is not likely. Continued research is needed to further reduce the uncertainty and we identify some of the more promising possibilities in this regard.
Re: (Score:3)
Just FYI, the "journo" in question is not entirely ignorant:
Scott has a master's in hydrogeology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and has worked as a hydrogeologist for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. In addition to teaching at Coconino County Community College and Northern Arizona University, he is Science Editor for Climate Feedback.
That said, I agree that TFS misses the main point of the article, let alone the original paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the interpretation was wilfully ignorant. This is a "journalist" we're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Blame whoever selected the summary. The Ars Technica article is fine, if you read all of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The question is how much the one billion population will grow in Africa with better health and wealth. It could quadruple or more by 2100.
Re: On a related note.. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been seen over n over that more educated, healthy, and wealthy populations have fewer children, usually to the point of not hitting replacement numbers.
If you want to avoid more African famine and war then stop raping the continent for resources, build schools up to university level everywhere, stop shipping in weapons by the mega ton, and stop sending free shit so they can build a real economy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The chinese are very busy at the moment helping those african dictators get ever wealthier and stay in power with the number of mining operations they've started in the continent. If the west had done it we'd have had the usual woke idiots complaining about imperialism but it seems ok for china to treat africans like virtual slaves paying them a pittance for their resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're confused,the biggest enemies of Africa doing the mayem and murder and resource raping are other Africans. "Stop shipping in weapons by the megaton", that means there are people there buying weapons so they can kill each other. The problem with Africa is Africans.
Population won't go down if there is religious mandate to subjugate women and breed. You missed the memo on flavor of religion growing there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they factor in linked events ? (Score:3)
If that happens, I fear, it might be a game over for us.
Dinosaur asteroid (Score:2)
Studies have show that after the impact CO2 levels went up to somewhere over 1000ppm and this caused a 5C temperature rise which would be an absolute disaster for our current ecosystem and human civilisation:
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
It doesn't matter the slightest. (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if we have equilibrium at +12 degrees centigrade or not.
We'd be screwed either way.
These results may offer some insight into how global climate change in geological timespans balance out and may be helpful to understand some details, but it changes nothing for the problem at hand: Man made climate change is happening at an ever accelerating rate and we have to slam the brakes make a hard 180 turn if humanity and the current ecosphere are not to be royally screwed. That's a cold hard scient
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: It's an embarrassment to science (Score:2)
There's actually more evidence for AGW than dark matter. DM is just the fantasy fill in the blank stuff made up to fill in the unknowns in cosmology. There's zero real evidence for it. I understand your point but you chose your apples apples comparison poorly.
At least with AGW there is data we can debate and discuss.
Re: (Score:3)
We can discuss how fast the poles will melt and if the methane clathrate gun is firing, but the deniers are trying to "debate and discuss" the physical science basis, and that's as crazy as the anti-vaccination movement or the flat earthers.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a complicated issue and trying to bundle it up into a small neat and tidy package is stupid. Much like your understanding of climate science.
Re: (Score:2)
It is too bad that the earth does not have positive feedback mechanisms to keep C02 levels from skyrocketing... oh like say plants. You know those magical things that eat C02 and shit out 02
Then it's a good thing we're preserving large rain forests like the Amazon so they can continue to soak up all that CO2.
Oh, wait ...
Re: (Score:2)
You know those magical things that eat C02 and shit out 02.
Alas, they're not as magical as you think. They don't break conservation of matter any more than CO2 breaks conservation of energy.
They sequester some CO2, most efficiently into wood, as they grow, and release it again when they rot.
Partly as methane, which has a much greater effect on temperatures in the less than few centuries time-frame than the same carbon as CO2.
A mature forest is carbon neutral, as trees are grown and dying so the total amount of wood is about the same.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're saying, there exist powerful lobbies backed by competing huge industries with billions of dollars depending on whichever the publications show density of dark matter is high or low, and putting political and financial pressure on getting the density of dark matter be one way or another?
Re: (Score:2)
Cosmology is an OK religion, but it needs a protestant reformation. Someone needs to nail some questions about CBR uniformity to Neil Degrasse Tyson's door.
Re: (Score:2)
String theory actually is an embarassment to science.
Trump supporters need to take cognitive tests (Score:2)
Why did you propagate the troll's subject?
At this point, anyone who is still defending Trump or Trump's insane policies and positions needs to show his cognitive test results before we should even start looking at the lies. Hey, it was good enough for the Donald.
We'll know it's over when Trump throws EVERYONE under the bus. He'll say the entire thing was his stable-genius plan to destroy the corrupt-swamp GOP and he's just retiring in a blaze of glory because he got so tired of winning!
Re:It's an embarrassment to science (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I know a lot more about climate science than I do about cosmology.
On the other hand the basic principle is that if you increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses, you increase the greenhouse effect.
It's not rocket science, but you don't seem to have grasped even that basic fact.
On what basis do you claim to know a "lot more about climate science" that you do about anything?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
He knows nothing of cosmology, but next to nothing about climate science. Something is technically more than nothing.
What he failed to realize is what he thinks he knows about climate science is wrong, and therefor he is in knowledge debt and would be better at a subject where he has zero knowledge. The sign on next to nothing is negative in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
We know at its past and current concentrations that the link between C02 levels and planet temperatures is weak at best. If anything C02 appears to follow temperature changes, not the other way around more often than the opposite.
We know that while yes C02 makes up 80-90 percent of the total of 'greenhouse' gases in the atmo, we ar
Re: (Score:2)
We know at its past and current concentrations that the link between C02 levels and planet temperatures is weak at best.
That's misinformation form the climate denial marketing industry.
Most commonly they use a hilariously ancient temperature reconstruction, from a time when it was thought that the earth pretty much oscillated between "warm" and "cold" phases, overlapped with a CO2 concentration from an early version of GeoCarbSulf before it has the Sulfur modelling in it.
It's ridiculous, and you see it everywhere in the denialophere: Picture. [medium.com]
In reality, if you look at temperature and CO2 they line up well:
We conclude that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 C has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years, regardless of temporal scaling.
- Climate se [ecolo.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said. A religion. A cult. Not science.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no "no true scotsman" fallacy there. I have presented my "that's wrong" points, but with an example of evidence based refutations.
What makes you unable to read that post for what it is? I'm guessing that you read a lot of denalist webpages and few scholarly papers, and h
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's an embarrassment to science (Score:4, Informative)
What data? The only thing you did was attack others and link to attacks on others. All notably data free.
Not only are you nothing, your "data" is nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
We would expect this to increase the temperature. This increase has been observed. Chart [woodfortrees.org]
What have I missed?
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the Children!!(TM) We must ban ice cream before its too late and we all get eaten by sharks!!
Correlation does not equal causation.
Re: (Score:2)
Correlation does not equal causation
That does not mean what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
We know CO2 traps heat - there is clear evidence for causation. The amount being trapped agrees with calculations from the amount of CO2, so that checks out as well.
If you want to suggest the correlation is due to some other factor, feel free to propose one. Scientists have been looking for alternate causes for decades, and have ruled them all out. CO2 is a well-known cause, and the only one that could cause the observed effect.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a ton of better heat trapping agents in our 'air'. Claiming that a weak gas like C02 increasing by 0.02 percent is the 'end of the world' is not science. Its a scam.
Re: (Score:2)
We know that C02 is not that great at trapping heat.
About 3 C per doubling. It's quite good. It's the most important greenhouse gas with respect to warming on a timescale longer than a few decades.
If it was as good as the climate cultist claim the world would have been dead a long time ago.
By "climate cultists" do you refer to the several hundred thousand scientists from both public and private research and educational institutions throughout the world that claim that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is about 3 C per doubling?
Or is there some fringe group claiming that CO2 has a much greater effect than that?
Hell if it was anywhere close to as good, we would use it as an insulator instead of expensive gasses - as the bottom line rules when it comes to manufacturing.
You're confusing two different things:
(1)
Re: (Score:2)
Correlation does not equal causation.
The causal mechanism is pretty easy to understand. It's called the greenhouse effect. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. Wiki [wikipedia.org] has a decent primer on it.
Re:It's an embarrassment to science (Score:5, Insightful)
It shows what kind of motivated research climate scientists have been doing for the last four decades, that they haven't been able to narrow the range at all.
Dude, it's literaly a planet sized problem. There are a large number of unknowns which means they are essentially solving a math problem that has a bunch of parts missing. A margin of error of three degrees is quite good considering what they have to work with. Give them a budget to match the military and they'll give you a much more accurate answer.
Re: (Score:1)
Again, the only thing you do is lodge ad hominem attacks and link to attacks made by others. All evidence free.
Consider your "evidence" answered.
Re: (Score:2)
I went through your links. There's no data. Meanwhile, actual evidence [www.ipcc.ch].
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, actual evidence [www.ipcc.ch].
I've read the IPCC reports. Have you read it?
A scientist went to global warming protests. That is a clear indication of preference for a certain outcome. That's not saying he's wrong, it's saying he has a clear bias. Why do you even disagree with that conclusion?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And? You wanted data, you've got data.
And back to ad hominem attacks. Others have already pointed out to you that ONE scientists out of thousands did that. Your sweeping disqualification is invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
How is a desire for action equated to a bias in their work? You never answered this. Do you have reason to believe this scientist's conclusions were affected by wanting to see their conclusions acknowledged, rather than the usual way around?
Your plumber room-mate says your pipes are leaking, and wants you to help cover the cost of fixing them before they flood the whole place. Would you claim his expert opinion is tainted by bias because he's really insistent on fixing it ASAP, claiming maybe he just wants
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The possible evidence presented is that they believe in the results of climate science enough to protest. You have not presented evidence that their personal biases have impacted their research. Also, it's worth noting that there are many scientists working in this field that have drawn largely the same conclusions, including those who have worked for oil companies.
Even if you discredited the work of an entire scientific team, it still doesn't change anything because we are not relying on just a handful o
Re: (Score:2)
Despite all the scientific progress since then, that answer (1.5-4.5C) has held up.
It shows what kind of motivated research climate scientists have been doing for the last four decades, that they haven't been able to narrow the range at all. Many scientists want the higher number to be the correct number, and mainly look for reasons to support that hope, instead of approaching the question from a "what is right?" perspective.
Despite the lack of citation , 1.5 is horrifying , doubly so if unchecked
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What horrifies you about it?
The most horrifying thing about it is your desire to develop a false narrative. Outside of that 1.5 quickly leads to 2.0 , and shit starts to die (best case scenario).
Are you telling me that you wish to combat climate change? that you wish to reverse this human-made calamity?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't quite know what that "1.5" means, do you? It's the ECS value - it's an estimate of how much warming from a doubling of greenhouse gases. It's not how hot it will get, it's a guess of how much heating you may get if you double the amount of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. In this case, 1.5 is awesome, as it's about 1/3rd of the value used in most models (4.5).
quickly latch onto the 1.5 and ignore (nearly all else) Yes the absolute minimum might not be "end of days" /whew - We dodged a bullet.
Again, why though?
Re: (Score:2)
It shows what kind of motivated research climate scientists have been doing for the last four decades
And we haven't found a grand unifying theory either despite scientists attempting to do so for the past several centuries and despite a certain insta-nobel prize to someone who does so. Those damn scientist all they do is sit in their lab playing with lasers. pew pew. Defund the scientists the partisan political slackers!
Yes I am mocking you. Your stupidity deserves to be mocked.
Re: (Score:2)
I think enough people have responded to the science. A few of us just need to remind you that you're a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
A response to your "science." [www.ipcc.ch]
Re:It's an embarrassment to science (Score:4, Informative)
They have narrowed the range. From TFA (emphasis mine):
So the likely range for equilibrium climate sensitivity ends up at 2.6 - 4.1C, with the most likely answer just a hair above 3C. (Even some tests of alternate assumptions or methods stay within 2.3 - 4.5C.) That’s considerably narrower than the old 1.5 - 4.5C range.
Re:It's an embarrassment to science (Score:4, Interesting)
If a statement is true, it is true independently of the opinion of the person making that statement. Attacking the opinion or the motivation of a person making a statement proves exactly nothing about the statement itself. It's attacking the messenger, not the message.
Apparently, estimating the climate sensitivity is hard, and getting better numbers isn't easy, thus it took some time and (according to the article) combining different methods to estimate the climate sensitivity for a better result. There are other things that are hard to find out: Getting a better value for Newton's Gravity constant is also hard. When Cavendish managed to measure it in 1798, he got a number that was 1.2 percent off, compared to contemporary measurements. Today, we know it at .015 percent accuracy, far away from other natural constant which we know at least to 8 decimal digits. Why don't you blame strong opinions among physicists as the main reason for the lack of accuracy with one of the most fundamental constants?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The East Anglia email leaks made it clear, look them up. The scientists involved were cleared of any scientific malfeasance, which is good (if they were liars it would be problematic), but it was clear that their research was motivated and directional.
James Hansen doesn't even try to hide it, he actively attends climate protests and even has been arrested for it. None of that is bad, but it's not science.
The IPCC Chris Landsea controversy [archive.org] clearly d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So Hansen, who attends client protests (that evil, evil man!), is to be shunned
You are bad at reading comprehension. I did not say Hansen was bad, I literally said what he did was not bad. Learn to read
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So Hansen, who attends client protests (that evil, evil man!), is to be shunned but Lindzen, who is a nutjob [rationalwiki.org], is to be respected. Got it.
Your linked "article" uses argumentum ad monsanteam: "He who I cannot refute must be a shill."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's an embarrassment to science (Score:5, Insightful)
The East Anglia email leaks made it clear, look them up.
They really didn't.
but it was clear that their research was motivated and directional.
Motivated to hold to the truth in the face of the well funded climate science denialist campaigns.
James Hansen doesn't even try to hide it, he actively attends climate protests and even has been arrested for it. None of that is bad, but it's not science.
Most people who understand the seriousness of the situation, and scientists tend to, are very concerned about political inaction on the subject. The problem is that the fossil fuel industry has engaged marketing, whereas the science is only armed with the truth, which is increasingly ineffective in the youtube era.
JThe IPCC Chris Landsea controversy clearly demonstrated it.
There were literally thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC FAR. That only one disagreed with the report sufficiently to withdraw is a statement confirming how conservative the reports are, that the consensus is almost complete.
I note that Landsea was involved with WGII, so even his objections were related to impact, not the physical science basis of global warming. Your suggestion that this clearly demonstrates "motivated and directional" research is fully whacko.
If you want an actual paper by a climate scientist, here is a citation
If you want half a million from the past couple of decades here they are. [google.com] You need some sense of scale of the literature here, mate. One paper doesn't define a field.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's an embarrassment to science (Score:4, Informative)
How do you equate "understand the seriousness" and "concerned about political inaction" with "motivated and directional" research, or "wanting the higher number to be the correct number"? Genuinely curious.
You're heavily implying bias on the part of climate scientists, despite the work of many thousands around the globe all broadly corroborating the same conclusions, but the only motivation described above is for the data and conclusions of the climate community to be recognised, and acted upon - ideally in a timely manner, as inaction is getting steadily more expensive.
Lindzen's contrarian views are well-known but very much an outlier in the climate community, and his own motivations are suspect thanks to undisclosed funding from the likes of Peabody Energy [theguardian.com], and many links to the Koch-funded Cato Institute, among others. This appears to have affected his work [wikipedia.org], to the point of e.g. his paper claiming exaggerated climate sensitivity being rejected by PNAS despite Lindzen himself selecting half the reviewers.
Re: (Score:2)
...guaranteed to mod you down on Slashdot if you try to give an alternate view to the "consensus" even if you backed your view with irrefutable evidence and facts
Or if you suggest a solution other than "Destroy industrial civilization!"
Re:It's an embarrassment to science (Score:5, Informative)
Hide the decline.
Referring to the dendroclimatology divergence problem [wikipedia.org]. The decline isn't real. Every other temperature proxy, and the instrumental record, and satellite MSUs ... all show warming since the 1960s. That's why its safe to hide it in a temperature reconstruction that reconstructs the actual best estimate of the temperature.
And the divergence problem wasn't hidden from the public or the literature. It was merely not plotted on the graph.There are dozens of papers about it.
But fundamentally, hiding real data from careful scrutiny is what climate "scientists" have been doing for decades.
And here we see an example of AC coward posting complete bullshit.
Not only is real data on temperatures generated by multiple large groups of scientists, but the outputs are widely shared.
Furthermore, there's no plausibility to this weird "anti-science scientists" conspiracy. Getting things wrong, does not advance a scientist career as well as getting them right. Getting them wrong on purpose ends it.
Well it does for a science career. If you're Andrew Wakefield, you can go on to a lucrative career in giving speeches encouraging people to put their children's heath at greater risk.
Why otherwise rational people continue to follow that death cult is beyond me, I give it a decade more tops before the reality is so clear even the most blind of you can see.
Scientists have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause a warming of about 3C since Arrhenius' paper in 1896. It's only been 12 decades. Surely in one more we will find that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses doesn't increase the greenhouse effect, contrary to evidence, basic optics, common sense, and conservation of energy.
Or, more likely, not.
Arrhenius wrote 2 papers on the Greenhouse effect (Score:2)
The first gave 3C per doubling, which is what you and yours truly want to be true. But what did the second conclude you might ask? Well, go look it up and prepare to be relieved, if that is possible.
That is the whole point of this thread. You and yours truly want something to be true and will truly attest to its truthiness for ever and ever. The difference between 3 is the whole debate. According to this study, we can now safely exclude most of the work of Michael Mann as he was one of the mos
Re: (Score:2)
"Our best estimate is that Earth's "equilibrium climate sensitivity" is close to 3C per doubling of CO2 [twitter.com]. Pre-industrial CO2 levels ~280 ppm. Current ~410 ppm. That gives (410/280)(3C/2) = 2.2C warming if we maintain CO2 at current levels and allow temperatures to equilibrate (1/2)"
This new paper puts the best estimate at 3.2C.
If 3.0C meant "dooms is nigh", then this new paper does not deliver good news.
Re: (Score:2)
That gives (410/280)(3C/2) = 2.2C warming if we maintain CO2 at current levels and allow temperatures to equilibrate (1/2)
Don't you have to get how many doublings by log(410/280)/log(2) = 0.55 doublings?
Then go times 3 C = 1.65 degrees C if we maintain CO2 at current levels and allow temperatures to equilibrate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Yours truly" indicates a first person singular, just FYI.
Re: (Score:2)
The first gave 3C per doubling, which is what you and yours truly want to be true. But what did the second conclude you might ask? Well, go look it up and prepare to be relieved, if that is possible.
This one? [friendsofscience.org]
For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C). - pp8 of the link.
It concluded 3.9 C per doubling, once water vapour feedback and corrections to the initial calculations are accounted for.
Why would that be a relief?
Re:It's an embarrassment to science (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why it increased?
Yes.
You can't know, the hypothesis has not been tested.
We do know because we understand the physics behind it. When you drop a book, you don't need to know that it is gravity that makes it fall, because you know that there is gravity, and you can tell that it falls within the parametres of it being due to that force.
Similarly we know the increasing greenhouse gasses will have an effect on the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, and this is measured to be the energy imbalance.
All we can know without experimental verification is that there is a correlation. For all we know, it could be caused by God's wrath.
No, we can apply the conservation of energy. There's no warming excep
Re: (Score:3)
Well, how about this for being an embarrassment to science: Science requires that hypothesis be tested with experimentation.
Umm? Very close, but not quite.
Science requires that a hypothesis be testable. An experiment is the BEST way to do that, because the experiment could be repeated over and over, and even by someone else. But, an experiment is not the ONLY way.
A second way is to make a prediction about what a phenomena would cause. Maybe even something that has not yet been observed. A clear example was Einsteins scientific prediction about gravity waves. It took on the order of 100yrs for technology to advance far enou
Re: (Score:2)