Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

Nobody can prevent people from being frightened until they assume control over their own emotions. If you want the latest science, watch the video on post #150

 

They were claiming the bugs proved climate fear is worth having. But they are still wrong. The climate is not in trouble.

 

The hypothesis that humans could be warming the planet began in the 19th century. It was met by skepticism from the relevant scientific community until the late 1950's when
experimental evidence by Gilbert Plass showed that adding CO2 would change the radiation balance. It took about another 20 years before the scientific community to
develop a consensus. Climate scientists and other scientists with relevant backgrounds are not the type of people who lack independence
of thought or fail to question existing paradigms.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/climate-science-history
The Short History:

• 1824 - Joseph Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect.
• 1859 - John Tyndall discovered that H2O and CO2 absorb infrared confirming the Fourier greenhouse effect.
• 1896 - Svante Arrhenius proposed human CO2 emissions would prevent earth from entering next ice age (challenged 1906).
• 1950’s Guy Callendar found H2O and CO2 did not overlap all spectra bands, therefore warming from CO2 expected (countered the 1906 objections against Arrhenius).
• 1955 - Hans Suess identified the isotopic signature of industrial based CO2 emissions.
• 1956 - Gilbert Plass calculated adding CO2 would significantly change radiation balance.
• 1957 - Revelle/Suess suggested oceans would absorb less CO2 causing more global warming than predicted.
• 1958/60’s - Charles David Keeling proved CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere.
• 70’s/80’s Suke Manabe and James Hansen began modeling climate projections.

1977 Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century


https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0096340210392966 Global warming: how skepticism became denial - Spencer Weart

Beginnings: Skepticism prevails
It took a century to accumulate enough evidence to convince climate experts that human activity would warm the planet. The starting point was a famous 1896 paper written by the Swedish physical chemist Svante Arrhenius. He estimated that doubling the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise the mean global temperature by several degrees. At the time that Arrhenius’s paper was published, there were many theories about what forces regulate climate. And to those few scientists who paid attention to such theories, the level of carbon dioxide seemed as plausible as any. To be sure, Arrhenius’s calculation had omitted many crucial effects. For example, a warmer atmosphere would carry more moisture, and wouldn’t that make for more clouds, which would reflect more sunlight and thus counteract the additional carbon dioxide? Thus, from the outset, strong skepticism ruled the field, as is normal among scientists (for full history and references, see Weart, 2008).

The initial skepticism changed to outright rejection in 1900. New experiments seemed to show that the part of the infrared spectrum that carbon dioxide affected was ‘saturated’—that is, the carbon dioxide and water vapor that were already in the atmosphere blocked radiation so thoroughly that adding more gas could make no difference. Henceforth, most scientists considered Arrhenius’s idea decisively refuted.

But there was a flaw in this refutation: The greenhouse effect acts most crucially high in the atmosphere, where additional traces of carbon dioxide and water vapor both make a big difference as they intercept radiation. However, decades passed before this flaw was recognized. After all, there were other reasons to reject a prediction of global warming. In particular, nearly all of the carbon dioxide in the terrestrial system is dissolved in the massive oceans, which hold 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere does. Thus, whatever gas humans added to the atmosphere would sink into the deeps.

That argument reflected deeply held beliefs about the natural world. The vast climate system of atmosphere, ocean, rock, and ice was self-regulating, maintaining its temperature and chemical composition over millennia. This grand equilibrium seemed far beyond anything mere humans could affect. The oceans’ regulation of carbon levels, and the presumed correlation between temperature and an increase of cloud reflection, were examples of benign mechanisms maintaining a durable ‘balance of nature.’ This worldview, which emphasized and yearned for continuity and stability, thus reinforced the specific arguments that anthropogenic global warming was impossible. Or at least unlikely: Arrhenius’s idea continued to be cited in climate textbooks, if only to argue against it. With no generally accepted theory of how climate might change, good scientists would keep all possibilities in mind, however odd. Skepticism can work both ways.

Revival of the theory
In 1956 the physicist Gilbert N. Plass, using greatly improved spectroscopic data and theories and the new electronic calculators, laid to rest the ‘saturation’ argument. Adding carbon dioxide to the upper layers of the atmosphere, he showed, would block additional heat radiation from leaving the planet. However, his calculation said nothing about whether clouds would change and reflect more sunlight . . .

 

It doesn't matter what people believe, fossil fuels will be with us until it's all gone. I hope for earth's sake the scientists who believe fossil fuels are destroying this planet are wrong. Yes, alternative energy will continue to grow in popularity and there is nothing wrong with that. As for nuclear energy I hope scientists are able to create nuclear fusion which will be safe to use for power plants around the world but I don't see that happening in my life time and I'm 65.

 

But why is the US shipping ton's of coal to China to be used in coal fired power plants? Doesn't that just defeat the purpose of trying to bring down CO2 emissions around the world? What happens to the CO2 emissions when they get into the jet streams? It stands to reason the pollution ends up back over the US eventually.

 

Lie. Happer is an atomic physicist, he has no training or qualifications as a climate scientist, he has published precisely zero papers on climate science. His expertise is in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, spin-polarized atoms and nuclei.

This made him eminently qualified to work as a climate science advisor to Trump, until he resigned, having failed to persuade the Orang Utan even to look at what the science says.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1061113085

 

This is what your author from the Heartland Institute stated:
"The study’s authors report that an examination of tropical storms that formed between 1979 and 2017 indicates that after the first half of the 39-year time period, the chance of a given tropical storm growing to become a major hurricane (category 3 or higher) rose by 8 percent in each of the latter two decades."

The study that he is referring to did not include tropical storms due to the unreliability of detecting tropical storms from satellite data or other sources. The study examined all hurricanes occurring globally
and compared the number of category 3-5 hurricanes to category 1-5 hurricanes.

"As discussed above, the ADT-HURSAT intensities near but below the minimum 65-kt threshold for a minimal Saffir−Simpson category 1 hurricane are generally less reliable, particularly at times when a developing eye is obscured under the TC cirrus cloud canopy.* This can be mitigated by simply focusing only on estimates within Saffir−Simpson categories 1 to 5, which is also appropriate for our emphasis on changes in the stronger TCs. Our metrics of interest in this work are based on the proportions of major hurricane intensities (Saffir−Simpson categories 3 to 5 that have winds equal to or greater than 100 kt) to all hurricane intensities (Saffir−Simpson categories 1 to 5)."




The fact that the vertical spacing between the top graph for all hurricanes and the lower graph for category 3-5 hurricanes shrinks from 1980 to 2020 is
indicative of a greater proportion of category 3-5 hurricanes relative to all hurricanes with time. There is a either a slight decrease or no change in all hurricanes from 1980 to 2020
and there is a small increase in the number of category 3-5 hurricanes. This is a short period of time for such a study but the confidence level was at 95% for an
increase in storm intensity over this time. The Heartland Institute author complained about the starting point using the 1980's but the 1970's were also a quiet time for hurricanes.

"Any claim of more frequent recent hurricanes requires cherry-picking the abnormally quiet 1980s as the baseline for comparison rather than the past 30 years, during which there has been no trend."

Most of the anthropogenic global warming has occurred since 1970 and if a 50 year period starting in 1970 would have been used we would have similar conclusions. The time frame where global warming is occuring is the best time frame to use, even though it is shorter than we would like.

I don't know if this study proves that there has been an increase the number of category 3-5 hurricanes globally or just an increase in the proportion of category 3-5 hurricanes
relative to all hurricanes. Both theoretical considerations and climate modelling support a higher proportion of category 3-5 hurricanes over this time period

 

An Unearthed undercover investigation has exposed how fossil fuel companies can secretly pay academics at leading American universities to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies’ commercial interests.

Posing as representatives of oil and coal companies, reporters from Unearthed asked academics from Princeton and Penn State to write papers promoting the benefits of CO2 and the use of coal in developing countries.

The professors agreed to write the reports and said they did not need to disclose the source of the funding.

Citing industry-funded documents – including testimony to state hearings and newspaper articles – Professor Frank Clemente of Penn State said: “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.”

Leading climate-sceptic academic, Professor William Happer, agreed to write a report for a Middle Eastern oil company on the benefits of CO2 and to allow the firm to keep the source of the funding secret.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/

Happer has also appeared as a paid expert witness on behalf of the Peabody coal company. They lost the case.

 

Speaking of fear it seems to me those who constantly attempt to debunk the science do so because they are afraid their lives will be seriously disrupted if governments actually do commit to their pledges to reduce CO2 emissions. But I do not see any government actually following through with their pledges. And please stop bullying Greta Thunberg. As we all are Greta is entitled to her beliefs. And it will be her generation that will be handed a mess if the climate scientists are correct about the damage CO2 is causing the planet. Most of the old f---- who are bullying her won't be around to see the mess they may have created.

 

I see in your post your own personal doubts that humans manage global climate. I do not intend to frighten humans by spreading information to create fear.
Greta actually has a famous climate scientist in her family's tree who would be ashamed of her tantrums and tactics.

 

This is so amusing given that the alarmists are paid high wages to spread fear among the people of the world.
Sorry but Earth is not melting. The best news of all is so far, and I tried to find one, none of the alarmists will admit man controls climate.

 

Your alarmist side takes the word on climate from those studying insects. Do not talk bad about a professor of Physics who has published more than 200 peer reviewed papers.

 

I want to give a practical tone to the hurricane discussion.
Hurricanes only happen over warm waters. They are spawned over warm waters. But as large as the ocean is were we in danger of melting this planet, the strength of hurricanes is not the sole way to measure. We could see it better if over the warming periods a non stop stream of hurricanes kept coming at us. And this is not happening.

 

Political nature of a science argument noted. At least you do not mind showing your motive is political.

https://www.masterresource.org/deba...peer-review-of-climate-alarmism-long-overdue/

 

Where is the mess? So now a child counsels you? Where is CO2 damage apparent?

It has to be a global impact not just a bit of whining over arctic ice while Antarctica ice is growing.

 

Continental drift also has been controversial. But this finally was proven to be true and no longer has many doubters. We note that if the man creates climate theory is true, we will learn it over time if it should ever happen.

 

We should not expect a non-stop stream of hurricanes coming at us. This issue is far more complicated than only considering the effects of warmer sea surface temperature. One has to consider
how much of the rise in sea surface temperatures is caused by humans and how much of it is natural. Hurricanes fill the entire vertical extent of the troposphere, about 8 miles high, so that
portion of the atmosphere has a large influence on hurricanes. Then, there is the question of vertical wind shear and how that will change in the future and the effects of decreasing or increasing
aerosols. So, it is difficult to make accurate projections about future cyclone strength and the probability of hurricanes reaching landfall.

The IPCC published an update on this issue on March 1, 2020
There is a medium to high confidence that the global proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5 will increase, but there is much less confidence that there will be an increase
in the absolute numbers of category 4 and 5 hurricanes. This issue, in my opinion, ranks very low among all climate change disasters that could occur with 2 degrees C. of warming.

Abstract
Model projections of tropical cyclone (TC) activity response to anthropogenic warming in climate models are assessed. Observations, theory, and models, with increasing robustness, indicate rising global TC risk for some metrics that are projected to impact multiple regions. A 2°C anthropogenic global warming is projected to impact TC activity as follows. 1) The most confident TC-related projection is that sea level rise accompanying the warming will lead to higher storm inundation levels, assuming all other factors are unchanged. 2) For TC precipitation rates, there is at least medium-to-high confidence in an increase globally, with a median projected increase of 14%, or close to the rate of tropical water vapor increase with warming, at constant relative humidity. 3) For TC intensity, 10 of 11 authors had at least medium-to-high confidence that the global average will increase. The median projected increase in lifetime maximum surface wind speeds is about 5% (range: 1%–10%) in available higher-resolution studies. 4) For the global proportion (as opposed to frequency) of TCs that reach very intense (category 4–5) levels, there is at least medium-to-high confidence in an increase, with a median projected change of +13%. Author opinion was more mixed and confidence levels lower for the following projections: 5) a further poleward expansion of the latitude of maximum TC intensity in the western North Pacific; 6) a decrease of global TC frequency, as projected in most studies; 7) an increase in global very intense TC frequency (category 4–5), seen most prominently in higher-resolution models; and a slowdown in TC translation speed.

 

Nice try at blaming hurricanes followed by presenting them as innocents.

I made relevant points. It was simple.

REPEAT. Hurricanes are spawns of warm water.

If Climate actually is changing we would see a steady increase in number of hurricanes. This is not what is happening.

The argument that Climate is based on some storms is bunk science.

As you can see, there is no steady increase of Hurricanes. We have too many anomalies.



Caution the graph brings in named storms which never should have happened. Even though that is the case, the data is not supporting the steady rise of hurricanes at all. The numbers bounce up and down.

Consider your own kitchen stove.

Does your stove go through cycles as it heats water? Do you find water heats faster or slower as the stove heats up?

As your stove heats, water will keep getting hotter and not have periods of cooling water as it heats up.

 

I saw a portion of the video and it wasn't accurate or interesting. He misleads the audience by saying that climate model projections are off by a factor of 2 to 3 (too much warming).
He bases this on one misleading graph of the tropical mid-troposphere, which compares satellite data, balloon data and the average of 106 climate model runs. He doesn't compare the surface
temperature data to the climate model results because those results have been fairly close. It is the surface of the earth that is most important because that is where we live and that temperature
data is much more accurate than either satellite data of the mid-troposphere or balloon data. He is assuming that we can trust the satellite data and balloon data to be 100% accurate.

He also talks about how carbon dioxide levels were far higher in the past and life thrived. However, life was adapted to higher temperatures when those CO2 levels were high so that doesn't
mean that human life or other life would thrive with a doubling of CO2 levels. The solar radiance was weaker in the past so that has to be taken into consideration too. I don't know how a
person with his educational background could make such a simple-minded video unless he was deliberately trying to deceive his audience.


Below is a summary of all the models Carbon Brief has looked at. The table below shows the difference in the rate of warming between each model or set of models and NASA’s temperature observations. All the observational temperature records are fairly similar, but NASA’s is among the group that includes more complete global coverage in recent years and is thus more directly comparable to climate model data.


https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

SAR trend differences are calculated over the period from 1990-2016, as estimates prior to 1990 are not readily available.
# Differences in parenthesis based on blended model land/ocean fields

Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

 

Climate models treat hundredths of a degree as meaningful.

But if you want to live in fear, go for it.

I will not live in fear that humans manage climate.

Actual observation shows many errors in climate models.

 

Robert; "Climate actually is changing we would see a steady increase in number of hurricanes. This is not what is happening."


No, the science doesn't support an increase in the number of hurricanes as the climate warms. As far as I know it never has.There are many factors that
influence the formation of hurricanes, warmer sea surface temperatures are only 1.

 

Sorry but no sale. See unlike the rest of the alarmists, I was trained to be a pilot. We were forced by the FAA to understand weather which is the basis of climate.

Hurricanes are often used as a marker by alarmists. They proclaim Earth has an emergency due to them.
They even use insects to show climate is harming us. Well that is bunk science.

 

We can only burn about 1/3 of our known reserves of carbon based fuel if we want to have a 50% chance of keeping the global mean surface temp. 2 degrees C. above pre-industrial levels.
2 degrees C. of warming is not necessarily a safe level of warming so that is why there has been an attempt to do better than this and limit warming to 1.5 degrees C. That will be nearly impossible.

This is an issue that will have to be addressed as the evidence builds for a coming climate catastrophe if we don't change course.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14016

"Policy makers have generally agreed that the average global temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2 °C above the average global temperature of pre-industrial times. It has been estimated that to have at least a 50 per cent chance of keeping warming below 2 °C throughout the twenty-first century, the cumulative carbon emissions between 2011 and 2050 need to be limited to around 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt CO2)2,3. However, the greenhouse gas emissions contained in present estimates of global fossil fuel reserves are around three times higher than this2,4, and so the unabated use of all current fossil fuel reserves is incompatible with a warming limit of 2 °C"

"Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2 °C. We show that development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incommensurate with efforts to limit average global warming to 2 °C"

 

This reminds me of the former Salem Witch hunts only this time it Climate.

This video ought to calm down any posters who are eager to blame climate on man.
When you study this long enough, darned near everything on this planet is carbon based. This is why plants love Carbon Dioxide.

 

Interesting read. Thanks. Climate scientists had hope to see a sizable drop in greenhouse gases due to the virus and the shutting down of the global economy, ie commercial aircraft parked indefinitely on the tarmac. That didn't happen which makes me think they will have to rethink the limit needed to keep warming below 2 degrees C.