Tim, do your bloody job as Apple CEO or leave already. Stop confusing your position with that of a busybody enviro-authoritarian for the Left.
Longer term, reducing the effect of global warming is ensuring the size of the market Apple can sell into. The do nothing option is billions dead, countries and borders being redrawn, unstable economies. Ie, a contraction in the market.
If global warming were a real event, then the climate data wouldn't need to be faked to fit the narrative.
Here's a good recap discussing the "Climategate" scandal from 2009
Here’s the link from Wikipedia on Climategate stating that the controversy was likely manufactured by quote mining creating a false impression. Multiple investigations over it have exonerated the emailers.
“Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”
It was just your usual quote mining where selective quotes were taking out of context out of the history of email correspondence primarily between 4 people.
In the end, the field of study is about a century old with thousands of people continually studying, criticizing, replicating and expanding the knowledge base. If they are doing something technically wrong, they would certainly like the input.
Thank you for attempting to explain what happened during Climategate, but if you were to read some of those emails, you would see how damning they are. So to brush it all off as mere quote mining is quite a stretch.
Moreover there actually are a surprising number of scientists who refute the global warming narrative and who state, that if anything, the earth is about to enter a cooling period, not a warming one.
But far from their input being welcomed as you suggest, they are instead pilloried and ostracized.
The reason for this is because modern day climate science is not a science in the traditional sense, but rather a political movement where dissent is quickly dealt with.
Climate science, as it stands today, is merely an attempt to justify a huge wealth confiscation tax in the form of so-called carbon taxes. And the scarier you make the narrative, the easier it will be to collect those taxes, or so the thinking goes.
There is nothing to see in Climategate as the Wikipedia article attests. [...]
... because of course everything on Wikipedia is true ... 🤨 Seriously??!
***
I just wanna know, when did skepticism and science part ways? With all the whacked out crazy claims being made on a daily basis about the end of the earth, with so few in the climate change movement speaking up to counter the crazy stuff, how is the layperson to sift though all the noise to understand what is a credible threat and what is sheer lunacy? Michael Mann himself has been bashed for countering some of the more extreme claims being made because, well, these claims support the narrative and will motivate people to “do something.” So, why should anyone with any sense believe all this crap and sign up to Government action that will directly and indisputably impact millions of worker’s livelihoods? It beggars belief!
A layperson sees evidence of climate change everyday if they open their eyes. How many stories about the Greenland Ice sheet melting, Siberian residents selling tusk from mastodons, Alaska's perma-freeze thawing and the release of methane gas from the rotting of organic materials. Reports like these are daily, to deny that systems which have been in place for thousands of years are not suddenly changing within the past 50-75 years is not due to human activity is to have ones head stuck in the sand.
A layperson sees evidence of climate change everyday if they open their eyes. How many stories about the Greenland Ice sheet melting, Siberian residents selling tusk from mastodons, Alaska's perma-freeze thawing and the release of methane gas from the rotting of organic materials. Reports like these are daily, to deny that systems which have been in place for thousands of years are not suddenly changing within the past 50-75 years is not due to human activity is to have ones head stuck in the sand.
Yep you are right the climate is changing. Always has, always will. Who are to think we could stop it or control it? It's laughable to think we humans have control over Mother Nature. She could smite us anytime she feels the need to. My CO2 footprint or yours can't do anything to stop it. (Well maybe if Al Gore toned his down a little bit that might help.)
Well for starters as any college professor could tell you, Wikipedia is not considered a trusted resource, so I would not be so quick to dismiss those Climategate emails. Instead take a look yourself, and then draw your own conclusions. As for me, it becomes extremely difficult to take their public predictions seriously after you see what they say to themselves when they didn't think anyone was looking.
Nah, the professor is only talking about deeper levels of detail and not in general laymen knowledge. Wikipedia is pretty damn good for the general knowledge. Could use a lot of work on properly displaying equations and have more illustrative diagrams in some places, but the information is reliable, and they stick to the facts as much as possible. If I need information about say the dimensions of the oblate spheroid that is the Earth? Wikipedia. A general history of the Mongols? Wikipedia. The history of MacBook Pro models? Wikipedia. The history of Apple Computer? Wikipedia. What happened in ST:TNG S5E2? Wikipedia. Helping me manipulate a Python dictionary? Not Wikipedia, but stackoverflow.
Here Wikipedia is saying there were 8 separate investigations into ClimateGate - results from people who read through the emails, who interviewed the various people - and said the investigations reported that there was nothing there. It included two examples of the quote mining and laid out the individuals and organizations involved in the affair, with links everywhere.
Then you seem to place a great deal of trust in whatever climate model you're referring to, the physics and what not. However the other day I stumbled across a NASA study which claimed the differences in temperature over time are actually caused by slight changes in the earth's orbit, and not CO2 levels. I was in a hurry and only scanned the article, but if true, this would blow a hole in the entire global warming industry, and the need for carbon taxes etc.
Yes, I place a great deal of trust in physics, especially well modeled physics. Global warming is fundamentally a heat transfer process, and if the current models are wrong, that means there is some new physics heretofore unknown. Interesting, but quite doubtful and you should be highly skeptical of people proposing ideas that break things like conservation of energy. People say one should be skeptical, but skepticism is rooted in data, math and models, not opinion, not people saying things. Every single piece of data and model is saying global warming is happening, and it is because we a taking carbon from the ground, burning it and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Find the link to this paper and I’ll read it. The Earth’s geologically recent past of ice ages from about 3 million years ago to today was dominated by the physics of Earth’s orbital eccentricity, it’s nutation, and likely some ocean flow phenomena that changed when the isthmus of Panama closed. This history will eventually be figured out through models. Today, it’s all on us taking carbon out of the ground, burning it and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. All proven by models.
Speaking of carbon taxes, you are entirely too sanguine about their costs.
In France for instance, the yellow vest movement has been rioting for over a year now because they don't want to pay exorbitant prices for petrol. These aren't wealthy oligarchs you're hurting here, but rather ordinary people who are already struggling to make ends meet.
So there is a real human cost to the draconian taxation which the advocates of global warming propose, based entirely on some theoretical models they hold sacrosanct, but which many suspect have been doctored due to scandals such as Climategate etc.
The protests or unrest in France, and probably in Chile too, are rooted in the wealth gap between the 95% of the people who are just getting by and the 5% who are really well off. The carbon taxes may have set off the protests, but the protesters are asking for more fair taxation schemes, better wealth distribution, higher minimum wage, etc. The Yellow Jackets want to fight climate change.
When I say carbon tax, you can assume I mean to do it smartly. If the implementation is dumb, it can be refined to make it as fair as possible.
Tim, do your bloody job as Apple CEO or leave already. Stop confusing your position with that of a busybody enviro-authoritarian for the Left.
He is doing his job. He is reducing how much it costs to run Apple by switching to renewable energy, by trying to go closed loop manufacturing.
If people have a house or property, it’s a no brainer to go solar today (except for issues with insolation hours, like trees or roof issues). ROI is getting down to 8 years in some places, and represents savings of tens of thousands of dollars over 20 to 30 years. Apple has a whole lot of property and energy use. It will be on order billions of dollars in energy costs saved. The recycling and recovery+processing is the same. Once the processes have matured, it will be cheaper to use recycled material than to be new from wherever.
Longer term, reducing the effect of global warming is ensuring the size of the market Apple can sell into. The do nothing option is billions dead, countries and borders being redrawn, unstable economies. Ie, a contraction in the market.
Assertions about the direction, duration and damage caused by environmental changes are pure fantasy.
A layperson sees evidence of climate change everyday if they open their eyes. How many stories about the Greenland Ice sheet melting, Siberian residents selling tusk from mastodons, Alaska's perma-freeze thawing and the release of methane gas from the rotting of organic materials. Reports like these are daily, to deny that systems which have been in place for thousands of years are not suddenly changing within the past 50-75 years is not due to human activity is to have ones head stuck in the sand.
Yep you are right the climate is changing. Always has, always will. Who are to think we could stop it or control it? It's laughable to think we humans have control over Mother Nature. She could smite us anytime she feels the need to. My CO2 footprint or yours can't do anything to stop it. (Well maybe if Al Gore toned his down a little bit that might help.)
You may be too young to remember how an international effort to regular aerosol gases help close the hole in the ozone over the southern pole, it worked, this time we are up against fossil fuels and a huge profits which have taken priority over an impending disaster. I hope you don't seriously doubt all the scientific research which has been collected over the last 40 years do you. Even President Bush SR gave speeches about the dangers of climate change when he was in office, how can you not know this?
Tim, do your bloody job as Apple CEO or leave already. Stop confusing your position with that of a busybody enviro-authoritarian for the Left.
He is doing his job. He is reducing how much it costs to run Apple by switching to renewable energy, by trying to go closed loop manufacturing.
If people have a house or property, it’s a no brainer to go solar today (except for issues with insolation hours, like trees or roof issues). ROI is getting down to 8 years in some places, and represents savings of tens of thousands of dollars over 20 to 30 years. Apple has a whole lot of property and energy use. It will be on order billions of dollars in energy costs saved. The recycling and recovery+processing is the same. Once the processes have matured, it will be cheaper to use recycled material than to be new from wherever.
Longer term, reducing the effect of global warming is ensuring the size of the market Apple can sell into. The do nothing option is billions dead, countries and borders being redrawn, unstable economies. Ie, a contraction in the market.
Assertions about the direction, duration and damage caused by environmental changes are pure fantasy.
How can someone that apparently has a passion for technology deny science at the same time? either your personal greed or politics are behind this
I just wanna know, when did skepticism and science part ways?
It never parted ways. Global warming is heat transfer physics. Heat transfer is a fundamental field of engineering that touches virtually everything that is done.
how is the layperson to sift though all the noise to understand what is a credible threat and what is sheer lunacy?
It’s the same old same old. Trust but be skeptical and verify, but most people likely aren’t looking for the truth or objective facts. They are just looking for whatever makes them feel whatever they like feeling. All emotion, all the time. With enragement algorithms on social media, they can direct highly targeted content instantly to their eyeballs. People can’t help themselves. Slowing down and disengaging would provide a nice respite for them, but it’s an endorphin shot. Tough to disengage, and I think most people know at at some level they are being gamed, and they just can’t help it.
Tim, do your bloody job as Apple CEO or leave already. Stop confusing your position with that of a busybody enviro-authoritarian for the Left.
He is doing his job. He is reducing how much it costs to run Apple by switching to renewable energy, by trying to go closed loop manufacturing.
If people have a house or property, it’s a no brainer to go solar today (except for issues with insolation hours, like trees or roof issues). ROI is getting down to 8 years in some places, and represents savings of tens of thousands of dollars over 20 to 30 years. Apple has a whole lot of property and energy use. It will be on order billions of dollars in energy costs saved. The recycling and recovery+processing is the same. Once the processes have matured, it will be cheaper to use recycled material than to be new from wherever.
Longer term, reducing the effect of global warming is ensuring the size of the market Apple can sell into. The do nothing option is billions dead, countries and borders being redrawn, unstable economies. Ie, a contraction in the market.
Assertions about the direction, duration and damage caused by environmental changes are pure fantasy.
I was actually being fairly optimistic about billions dead for the “do nothing” course of action. It implies there will be some billions of humans living at polar latitudes a couple centuries in the future, they’ll have sustainable food production processes, and maybe multi-million population domed cites or equivalent at near equatorial latitudes.
The do nothing option (or the stay the course of burning fossil fuels option) is projected to have a +15 °F global average temperature increase. And the models don’t include methane and CO2 from melting permafrost, which is hanging out there as an unknown additional temperature increase. This is where the worst case scenario of the end of human civilization occurs and possibly of humanity itself if it can’t engineer a sustainable ecosystem at those conditions.
The oft +3.6 °F recommended limit for the past few decades basically threw equatorial peoples under the bus, and only recently in the last 10 years did they come to accept it, and came up with the +2.5 °F stretch goal. We’d be lucky if we could limit it to +7.2 °F, at least we are trying, and will dollars to donuts do geoengineering in a few decades.
A layperson sees evidence of climate change everyday if they open their eyes. How many stories about the Greenland Ice sheet melting, Siberian residents selling tusk from mastodons, Alaska's perma-freeze thawing and the release of methane gas from the rotting of organic materials. Reports like these are daily, to deny that systems which have been in place for thousands of years are not suddenly changing within the past 50-75 years is not due to human activity is to have ones head stuck in the sand.
Yep you are right the climate is changing. Always has, always will. Who are to think we could stop it or control it? It's laughable to think we humans have control over Mother Nature. She could smite us anytime she feels the need to. My CO2 footprint or yours can't do anything to stop it. (Well maybe if Al Gore toned his down a little bit that might help.)
You may be too young to remember how an international effort to regular aerosol gases help close the hole in the ozone over the southern pole, it worked, this time we are up against fossil fuels and a huge profits which have taken priority over an impending disaster. I hope you don't seriously doubt all the scientific research which has been collected over the last 40 years do you. Even President Bush SR gave speeches about the dangers of climate change when he was in office, how can you not know this?
LOL, there are still holes that occur in the ozone. They open and close all the time. How do you not know this?
Unlike you , I do not doubt ALL the scientific research over the last 40 years, (which by the way is the equivalent of a pimple on the earth’s ass). A consensus is not scientific. It is a guess. And at best that is the argument climate change scientists are using and desperately want to be fact.
You might be too young to remember that at one time we were on the cusp of entering another ice age. We had to change our ways or we would all freeze to death. When that didn’t work out we were then going to bake to death. Nothing like doing a full 180 in 30 years right?
Oh and GB SR, who cares what he said. Like Al Gore he was a politician. Nothing more, nothing less.
Unlike you , I do not doubt ALL the scientific research over the last 40 years, (which by the way is the equivalent of a pimple on the earth’s ass). A consensus is not scientific. It is a guess. And at best that is the argument climate change scientists are using and desperately want to be fact.
You might be too young to remember that at one time we were on the cusp of entering another ice age. We had to change our ways or we would all freeze to death. When that didn’t work out we were then going to bake to death. Nothing like doing a full 180 in 30 years right?
There was never any consensus on “global cooling” in the 70s, and it was at best a minority viewpoint. It was primarily a media dramatization of a few scientists speculating that if aerosols (particulates) pollution continued and was driven up by several factors more (4x, 5x, 8x), their cooling effect (blocking sunlight) could overcome the CO2 greenhouse effect, and drive the planet towards a cooling feedback and an “Ice age”.
As time has proven, the carbon intensive economies of the time cleaned up particulate emissions, and that line of speculation goes away as the driver for it went away.
It’s the same thing for global warming, drive CO2 emissions to zero, take CO2 out of the atmosphere, our risks for the consequences of global warming go away. We’re about 30 years too late, and we will eat about +4 to +6 °F at least and the consequences of this, but stopping that rise, every +degree that we don’t hit, is beneficial. Every additional temperature increases has severe consequences for the water cycles around the world, the ecosystems that rely on them, and the humans that rely on the environment around them.
Unlike you , I do not doubt ALL the scientific research over the last 40 years, (which by the way is the equivalent of a pimple on the earth’s ass). A consensus is not scientific. It is a guess. And at best that is the argument climate change scientists are using and desperately want to be fact.
You might be too young to remember that at one time we were on the cusp of entering another ice age. We had to change our ways or we would all freeze to death. When that didn’t work out we were then going to bake to death. Nothing like doing a full 180 in 30 years right?
There was never any consensus on “global cooling” in the 70s, and it was at best a minority viewpoint. It was primarily a media dramatization of a few scientists speculating that if aerosols (particulates) pollution continued and was driven up by several factors more (4x, 5x, 8x), their cooling effect (blocking sunlight) could overcome the CO2 greenhouse effect, and drive the planet towards a cooling feedback and an “Ice age”.
As time has proven, the carbon intensive economies of the time cleaned up particulate emissions, and that line of speculation goes away as the driver for it went away.
It’s the same thing for global warming, drive CO2 emissions to zero, take CO2 out of the atmosphere, our risks for the consequences of global warming go away. We’re about 30 years too late, and we will eat about +4 to +6 °F at least and the consequences of this, but stopping that rise, every +degree that we don’t hit, is beneficial. Every additional temperature increases has severe consequences for the water cycles around the world, the ecosystems that rely on them, and the humans that rely on the environment around them.
The first link is primarily a collection of newspaper/magazine articles or reports/memos on global cooling speculation. A lot of them seemed to be based on extrapolation of averaged global temperature trends that were cooling from the peak in the 1940s, with a couple basing it on ice age cycles. Ie, not math, no models.
It’s also not an indication of consensus in the field of climate science. You can collect articles on warnings of or speculation about global warming as well. The speculation on global warming and the effect of fossil fuel usage goes back about 150 years. The oil and fossil fuel company scientists were predicting global warming at the time. Competing theories and speculation come about in young fields, and eventually the bad ones get knocked out as data comes in. Climate science began to mature in the 60s and 70s when planetary data came out (Venus, Mars and Earth), which solidified the science and models with global data, and the alternate hypotheses became invalid, like global cooling or no change. So, they didn’t become a media story anymore.
The 2nd link is an article in response to a paper that said most papers were on global warming in the 1970s, which is in response to people saying scientists were saying the world was headed for an ice age in the 1970s. That the two things exist means there wasn’t any consensus at the time and this is just a game of paper finding and who to trust.
The last link with Leonard Nimoy as narrator just proves that global cooling was a fringe idea and nobody took it seriously. Your link on YouTube is for episode 23 of Season 2 of the TV show “In Search Of”, a show I loved watching as a kid. It is not a documentary, but a tabloid science show or innuendo show covering fringe ideas and stories, including the paranormal, ancient aliens, witches, triangles (Bermuda, Great Lakes), cryptozoological creatures, ancient mysteries, science fiction ideas, etc. That is, the show was about things no one took seriously, only a few people here and there, and often they were considered crazy. If global cooling was serious, they wouldn’t have made an In Search Of episode about it, especially one that aired some time in 1978. (There are likely some that panned out, but I don’t remember).
Interestingly, there have been two revivals. One in the 1990s with Mitch Pileggi, of X-Files fame, a TV drama about fringe ideas, and 2010s with Zachary Quinto, Mr Spock in the Kelvin universe. (Rod Serling of Twilight Zone fame was slated to be the original narrator instead of Nimoy, but he unfortunately passed away). I watched neither of the latter shows. Just not the same when we know so much of the world now.
I only vaguely recall global cooling in the media, was probably too young. I do however remember vividly learning about nuclear winter back then. I also remember thinking that it must have been really wintery in the 1800s from looking at pictures, with snow pack as high as trains and houses. Heh, back then, school taught 3 different hypotheses for the beginning of the universe: Big Bang, steady state, and I don’t remember the 3rd.
The vast majority of those who are making decisions to ignore scientific evidence will be dead before the consequences of their inaction have a catastrophic impact on their descendants.
The suffering caused by climate change and rising sea levels will be disproportionately felt by those who are least able to handle the disruption. The descendants of those who are currently steering future generations into a swampy abyss for their short term financial and political gains will be able to move their seaside mansions and luxury yachts to new seaside locations, like Phoenix, Spokane, and Kansas City.
To future generations: you have our thoughts and prayers. Oh, and learn how to swim.
The time to act would have been back when a certain Apple Board member made a film about the problem...
Or about ten years before that. Back in the ‘80s there was testimony before Congress about the issue. They all listened, thanked the scientists who spoke, and then did nothing.
Man you guys are awful. Tell you what: once ANY prediction from the AGW camp comes true, because the science is fully understood, maybe we can start working on the issue. Until then, stop concern-trolling about the non-problem of AGW.
And by the way, that “testimony” in the 80’s was nothing more than propaganda from Hansen. 3 to 9 degrees F in the 2020’s? He wasn’t even close. It would be very refreshing to hear anybody in the AGW camp say that we just don’t fully understand all the dynamics of our planet’s climate, because that’s whatIS true.
Science deniers which most of those commenting here seem to be are not thinking beyond their own front door. It's a big complicated world out there and we are all dependent on each other regardless if you understand that or not.
Sorry bro, you’re the one denying science by perpetuating a myth built on cherry-picked data obtained by studies that confirm the conclusion a priori. I’ll keep posting this as long as the battle rages: when ANY prediction from the AGW camp actually comes true, because the science is understood, I’ll start listening. Up to now they haven’t, because it isn’t.
spice-boy You may be too young to remember how an international effort to regular aerosol gases help close the hole in the ozone over the southern pole, it worked, this time we are up against fossil fuels and a huge profits which have taken priority over an impending disaster. I hope you don't seriously doubt all the scientific research which has been collected over the last 40 years do you. Even President Bush SR gave speeches about the dangers of climate change when he was in office, how can you not know this?
You think 40 years of cherry-picked data (I.e., not research) is enough to make absolute conclusions on a system that’s been running for billions of years? You’re delusional. Please stop lecturing us about science when you clearly demonstrate that you yourself don’t understand the method.
Man you guys are awful. Tell you what: once ANY prediction from the AGW camp comes true, because the science is fully understood, maybe we can start working on the issue. Until then, stop concern-trolling about the non-problem of AGW.
Most of the predictions have come true. There are sensationalized accounts from the media, like the Arctic will be ice free this decade, which haven’t come true, or sensationalized media accounts conflating the 2.7/3.6 °F goal by 2030 with it being apocalyptic (this is complicated as those goals threw equatorial peoples under the bus), but on average, the field of climate science got it right.
Even models in the 1970s accurately predicted the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature rise
... 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.
The study suggests that many of the models criticized in the past were accurately simulating the relationship between temperatures and greenhouse gases after all—it’s just that their assumptions about future carbon emissions didn’t match up with the emissions that were actually produced in the following years.
In other words, if scientists went back and input the exact levels of greenhouse gas emissions that actually occurred after the models were published, their predictions about future warming would have been on point. ...”
The paper is behind a paywall, but it is here if you want to pay or have an existing account.
Some people do have accounts, and have posted a plot from it:
On the x-axis are 14 models, with some dating back to the 1970s. The red dots are the model predictions with the start date and end dates of the prediction on the bottom, plus the source. The blue dots are the measurements or observations. The error bars, are well, error bars. The size of the error bars is likely based on your typical root-sum-square of the errors of the model and measurement parameters.
The top y-axis is the increase in temperature in Celsius per decade. The bottom y-axis is a normalization of the model predictions to the increase in temperature in Celsius if CO2 concentrations doubled. That looks pretty damn good all things considered. Shows what is typical. If the 1st order driving parameters are properly modeled, analytic predictions will get it right or close.
But as the SciAm article states, the vast majority of error in good models typically come from input errors. In this case, predicting the profile of future emissions is rather difficult as it is dependent on human decisions.
Rasool, who made an ice age prediction or speculation, is seen on the plot as a low side predictor. His physics model was good, but his emissions profile wasn’t. He was assuming there was going to be a lot more aerosol and particulate pollution than happened, and was on the low side in his prediction as a consequence. There’s a lot less atmospheric pollution today in the USA and Europe. Acid rain, hazes of varying colors, soupy air days. Those aren’t made up stories. They really did happen in the 50s through 70s, so, Rasool wasn’t just guessing, he just didn’t think we’d clean it up.
And by the way, that “testimony” in the 80’s was nothing more than propaganda from Hansen. 3 to 9 degrees F in the 2020’s? He wasn’t even close. It would be very refreshing to hear anybody in the AGW camp say that we just don’t fully understand all the dynamics of our planet’s climate, because that’s what IS true.
Hansen used 3 emissions profiles for his testimony in Congress. They were labeled Schedule A, B, and C. It’s labeled as such in the top plot for the second Hansen et al column. Schedule A was an optimistic scenario where emissions leveled off, Schedule C was a high emissions profile, something worse than do nothing, and Schedule B was in the middle.
Your question, ”3 to 9 degrees F in the 2020’s?”, is for the Schedule C profile, an emissions profile that didn’t happen. Once the emissions profile accounted for CFC reductions, something in between Schedule A and Schedule B, his model prediction hit the observations as can be seen above.
Here is a plot of Hansen’s model with an adjusted Schedule B for CFC reductions: Using an emissions profile that more accurately reflects the global emissions of the past 30 years, his model nailed it.
Yes, we don’t completely understand the dynamics of the heat transfer system of the planet, like ocean currents, ice sheet dynamics, cloud dynamics, permafrost CO2 releases and the interactions between them. But, they are all being chipped away at, being integrated with numerical global climate models, continuously compared against data. They all say the same basic thing. Increasing CO2 into the atmosphere, increases surface atmospheric temperatures, with downstream consequences that are discussed ad infinitum.
But as shown above, the statics of the problem are the first order drivers for the amount of increased heat, and how fast it will heat up. Such that analytic models from 30 years ago did a good job in predicting the temperature response per decade and per CO2 concentration.
Comments
***
I just wanna know, when did skepticism and science part ways? With all the whacked out crazy claims being made on a daily basis about the end of the earth, with so few in the climate change movement speaking up to counter the crazy stuff, how is the layperson to sift though all the noise to understand what is a credible threat and what is sheer lunacy? Michael Mann himself has been bashed for countering some of the more extreme claims being made because, well, these claims support the narrative and will motivate people to “do something.” So, why should anyone with any sense believe all this crap and sign up to Government action that will directly and indisputably impact millions of worker’s livelihoods? It beggars belief!
Here Wikipedia is saying there were 8 separate investigations into ClimateGate - results from people who read through the emails, who interviewed the various people - and said the investigations reported that there was nothing there. It included two examples of the quote mining and laid out the individuals and organizations involved in the affair, with links everywhere.
When I say carbon tax, you can assume I mean to do it smartly. If the implementation is dumb, it can be refined to make it as fair as possible.
How can someone that apparently has a passion for technology deny science at the same time? either your personal greed or politics are behind this
It’s the same old same old. Trust but be skeptical and verify, but most people likely aren’t looking for the truth or objective facts. They are just looking for whatever makes them feel whatever they like feeling. All emotion, all the time. With enragement algorithms on social media, they can direct highly targeted content instantly to their eyeballs. People can’t help themselves. Slowing down and disengaging would provide a nice respite for them, but it’s an endorphin shot. Tough to disengage, and I think most people know at at some level they are being gamed, and they just can’t help it.
The oft +3.6 °F recommended limit for the past few decades basically threw equatorial peoples under the bus, and only recently in the last 10 years did they come to accept it, and came up with the +2.5 °F stretch goal. We’d be lucky if we could limit it to +7.2 °F, at least we are trying, and will dollars to donuts do geoengineering in a few decades.
Unlike you , I do not doubt ALL the scientific research over the last 40 years, (which by the way is the equivalent of a pimple on the earth’s ass). A consensus is not scientific. It is a guess. And at best that is the argument climate change scientists are using and desperately want to be fact.
You might be too young to remember that at one time we were on the cusp of entering another ice age. We had to change our ways or we would all freeze to death. When that didn’t work out we were then going to bake to death. Nothing like doing a full 180 in 30 years right?
Oh and GB SR, who cares what he said. Like Al Gore he was a politician. Nothing more, nothing less.
As time has proven, the carbon intensive economies of the time cleaned up particulate emissions, and that line of speculation goes away as the driver for it went away.
You better tell Spock he was wrong too; https://youtu.be/mOC7ePWCHGk
It’s also not an indication of consensus in the field of climate science. You can collect articles on warnings of or speculation about global warming as well. The speculation on global warming and the effect of fossil fuel usage goes back about 150 years. The oil and fossil fuel company scientists were predicting global warming at the time. Competing theories and speculation come about in young fields, and eventually the bad ones get knocked out as data comes in. Climate science began to mature in the 60s and 70s when planetary data came out (Venus, Mars and Earth), which solidified the science and models with global data, and the alternate hypotheses became invalid, like global cooling or no change. So, they didn’t become a media story anymore.
Interestingly, there have been two revivals. One in the 1990s with Mitch Pileggi, of X-Files fame, a TV drama about fringe ideas, and 2010s with Zachary Quinto, Mr Spock in the Kelvin universe. (Rod Serling of Twilight Zone fame was slated to be the original narrator instead of Nimoy, but he unfortunately passed away). I watched neither of the latter shows. Just not the same when we know so much of the world now.
I only vaguely recall global cooling in the media, was probably too young. I do however remember vividly learning about nuclear winter back then. I also remember thinking that it must have been really wintery in the 1800s from looking at pictures, with snow pack as high as trains and houses. Heh, back then, school taught 3 different hypotheses for the beginning of the universe: Big Bang, steady state, and I don’t remember the 3rd.
And by the way, that “testimony” in the 80’s was nothing more than propaganda from Hansen. 3 to 9 degrees F in the 2020’s? He wasn’t even close. It would be very refreshing to hear anybody in the AGW camp say that we just don’t fully understand all the dynamics of our planet’s climate, because that’s whatIS true.
Most of the models of the past 30 to 40 years got the basic physics right, and therefore have matched the temperature rise the past 30 to 40 years. Here is very recent article on it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-models-got-it-right-on-global-warming/
“Climate Models Got It Right on Global Warming
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.
In other words, if scientists went back and input the exact levels of greenhouse gas emissions that actually occurred after the models were published, their predictions about future warming would have been on point. ...”
The paper is behind a paywall, but it is here if you want to pay or have an existing account.
But as the SciAm article states, the vast majority of error in good models typically come from input errors. In this case, predicting the profile of future emissions is rather difficult as it is dependent on human decisions.
Rasool, who made an ice age prediction or speculation, is seen on the plot as a low side predictor. His physics model was good, but his emissions profile wasn’t. He was assuming there was going to be a lot more aerosol and particulate pollution than happened, and was on the low side in his prediction as a consequence. There’s a lot less atmospheric pollution today in the USA and Europe. Acid rain, hazes of varying colors, soupy air days. Those aren’t made up stories. They really did happen in the 50s through 70s, so, Rasool wasn’t just guessing, he just didn’t think we’d clean it up.
Your question, ”3 to 9 degrees F in the 2020’s?”, is for the Schedule C profile, an emissions profile that didn’t happen. Once the emissions profile accounted for CFC reductions, something in between Schedule A and Schedule B, his model prediction hit the observations as can be seen above.
Here is a plot of Hansen’s model with an adjusted Schedule B for CFC reductions:
Using an emissions profile that more accurately reflects the global emissions of the past 30 years, his model nailed it.
Yes, we don’t completely understand the dynamics of the heat transfer system of the planet, like ocean currents, ice sheet dynamics, cloud dynamics, permafrost CO2 releases and the interactions between them. But, they are all being chipped away at, being integrated with numerical global climate models, continuously compared against data. They all say the same basic thing. Increasing CO2 into the atmosphere, increases surface atmospheric temperatures, with downstream consequences that are discussed ad infinitum.
But as shown above, the statics of the problem are the first order drivers for the amount of increased heat, and how fast it will heat up. Such that analytic models from 30 years ago did a good job in predicting the temperature response per decade and per CO2 concentration.