20 Reasons To Be Skeptical of Human-Induced Global Warming

It happens quite often.

https://weather.com/science/weather-explainers/news/why-california-wildfires-worse-in-fall/

 

There are many types of hard data that could disprove AGW theory. For example, if the world stops warming in the long term, AGW theory is disproved. AGW theory is falsifiable, making it real science.

In contrast, there is literally no data that can disprove denialism, putting that in the category of a religion.

So since no new technology is derived from studying exoplanets, that science must be false. Interesting standard.

 

And conveniently, that's plenty of time to institute global government by star chamber "just in case".

Which is nothing like a reasonable inference from anything I said, obviously; and just as obviously, it's not nearly as much about the theory being true or false as it is about what the technocrats are trying to browbeat the lay public into betting on it.

 

Yet in the same month, parts of the USA are colder than the proverbial witches ass.

 

I don't agree that there is a linear relationship between delta T and delta RF.
The 333 w/sq.meter back-radiation has to melt ice and snow before the
earth's mean global temperature can significantly rise. This is because the
initial state of the earth without greenhouse gases is a frozen planet,
especially at the polar regions. So, dividing 33 degrees of temperature
rise by 333 w/sq. meter to get 0.1 degree C/ w/sq. meter and then multiplying
by 3.7 to get 0.37 degree C/ w/sq meter is invalid.

One way to get an approximate value for the no-feedback temperature rise for a
doubling of carbon dioxide is to differentiate the Stefan-Boltzman law; dF/dT
and plug in 255 degrees C. for T. This will yield a 1.0 degree C. temperature
rise for 3.7 watts/sq. meter. A more accurate value based on a more complicated model is 1.2 degrees C. I think that this involves simultaneously
addressing both the top of the atmosphere energy budget and the surface
energy budget.

 

Yep. I agree. ΔT and ΔRF likely aren't linear even over typical values. One huge factor like you said is the melting of ice/snow which takes 334 kj/kg just to make the phase change from solid to liquid. Yet it only takes 4 kj/kg to change the temperature by 1C. There's a huge bottleneck in the ΔT increase as the warming gets hung up waiting for ice/snow to melt.

By the way, I actually did differentiate the SB law in this post and came up with ΔT = 0.91C for a 3.7 W/m2 force. So yeah, you and I are in the ballpark. And I agree that 1.2C is more realistic using a more complicated model which accommodates vertical heat distribution behavior. One trick with the method I used in my analysis is that I actually did the perturbation technique which requires me to finely tune the emissivity value just right. I chose 0.87 which provided a reasonable balance between my assumed 340 W/m2 of cross sectional integrated radiation and the temperature we observe today. Even slight changes in the emissivity of the planet can have big consequences on the final result from the SB law.

One comment I want to make is that this ΔT of ~1.0C is the radiant increase in temperature of the whole planet resulting from a 3.7 W/m2 perturbation. Some mediums (like the ocean) will radiate at a lower temperature while others will radiate at a higher temperature (like the atmosphere). So this ~1.0C rise in radiant power is slightly misleading because it doesn't differentiate between the heat storage mediums on the planet. It's basically just the average of all of them. And since the ocean absorbs about 90% of the accumulation of energy and it has a much higher specific heat capacity than air nevermind that it's considerably more massive it warms much slower so the ~1.0C rise for everything is about in the ballpark of what you'd expect from a doubling of CO2.

 

@iamanonman

Your posts are very informative and well written on the subject of climate. How did you acquire so much knowledge about climate science and what is your background, if you don't mind.

 

Thanks for the kind words. I'm actually a nobody that happens to read a lot. It certainly doesn't hurt that I'm pretty good at math and can read actual research and for the most get the general gist of what they're saying in the publications...most of the time anyway. I love atmospheric sciences, but surprisingly climate isn't my passion. I actually despise politics. I post here because I stumbled on this site one day and noticed how much misinformation is floating around regarding the climate. I just want people to know the truth so they can make informed decision.

 

Unless one enjoys the science, the actual science of AGW is a waste of time and a political discussion of the science even a bigger waste of time. Unless one enjoys that sort of thing or it is one's occupation.

All us non scientists need to know is the basic theory of AGW, once that is understood it will become clear how futile political actions are, and will be, at solving the problem.

 

And have. Such data are simply altered to bring them into accord with AGW theory.

Yes, it is falsifiable and has been falsified. The falsifications are erased by altering the data.

By "denialism" I assume you mean denial that the cyclical and non-cyclical natural forces that indisputably caused all previous climate change could possibly have caused recent climate change -- that such forces have somehow been rendered inoperative by anthropogenic CO2. You are correct that that is a religious view.

 

And I'll ask again. Show me a physical process that is primarily modulated by natural agents and present data to back it up that explains:

1. The accelerated warming of the entire geosphere (land, ice, ocean, atmosphere, etc.).

2. The simultaneous warming of the troposphere and hydrosphere with the cooling stratosphere.

Then provide a narrative that can explain both past and present climate change at least equally as well as the consensus without invoking greenhouse gases like CO2. This narrative needs to explain how the Earth has generally cooled over the last 50 million years (and longer) from the thermal maximum during the Eocene despite the Sun brightening during this period.

 

Ahhh yes there it is again. The final fall back position of the warmer cult. "Oh yeah if my hypothesis is wrong show me a better one, until you can I'm right by default." Meanwhile in the real world things constantly happen that can't be explained by scientist and leaves them scratching their pointy heads.

Strange seismic waves that rippled around world leave scientists bewildered

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ascar-volcanic-activity-science-a8659236.html

 

We know why you make up these conspiracy fables. All the hard data says your political/religious cult is wrong, but your cult demands strict obedience to cult dogma. Honesty is therefore not an option for you, so your only remaining option is fraud.

Your cult theory there does not explain the directly observed stratospheric cooling, the increase in downwelling backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG absorption bands. None of those directly observed things has any natural explanation.

Because your cult's theory is contradicted by the observed data, that theory is wrong. It is that simple. You're wrong, we're right, not because of politics, but because the directly observed hard data says we're right. Your sincere religious beliefs that your political/religious cult is perfect in every way doesn't change that reality.

 

riiiight...you have zero scientific evidence (other than conspiracy theories)to support your hypothesis and you believe that's the equal of millions of scientists from all fields of science and mountains of hard data to support their conclusion...

ok then you're clearly a super genius and must be right...carry on...

 

Earth's history is my evidence. Constant and dramatic climate shifts before man's industrial revolution.

 

That's kind of how science works. When given the choice between two or more theories you pick the one that provides the best explanations and provides the best predictions with the least complexity.

And it's not that I'm right be default. It's that I'm more right than you are.

 

So let's look at the two different "theories".
AGW has computer models and correlation is causation while natural causes has millions of years of history to back it up. AGW has scientist that claim to have infinte knowledge and understanding of climate today while remaining pretty much in the dark about millions of years of drastic climate change in the past from the recent LIA to the demise of the dinosaur and all points between and before. Natural causes theory accepts the fact that we are scratching at the surface of climatology and don't understand all the intricacies of climate then or now. One side is a display of hubris and arrogance and the other side is a realization and acceptance of the fact that man is along for the ride and is privy to only the tip of a very large iceberg of knowledge. Pun intended.

 

You haven't actually presented any theory here though. The only thing you've done is said that it's not possible to form a theory and then you used an incredulous tone as a way of solidifying your point.

A theory is something that makes predictions, explains observations, and is testabable. Saying that "man is along for the ride" is not making a prediction, nor does it explain observations, and it isn't even a testable concept. That is what we call a "nuh-uh" argument.

For example, a theory would be able to explain the warming troposphere and hydrosphere simultaneous with the cooling stratosphere. Can you do that without invoking GHGs?

 

Apparently you can't understand the theory that earth earth is in charge and we don't know how or why it does what it does and what we do is largely irrelevant.
The prediction is climate is unpredictable and our influence is miniscule.
The test is as we have put exponentially more C02 into the atmosphere over the last decade the warming slowed or stopped depending on who you believe so obviously natural forces overpowered our C02 contribution.

 

"We don't know" is not a theory.

Also, you're making a statement here that needs to be backed up with facts. You are claiming that what humans do is largely irrelevant. Present evidence that shows CO2 emissions do not have consequences. To be convincing it needs to be an abundance of evidence that is at least equal in magnitude to the evidence that says otherwise.

First, that's quite clearly falsified because we can, in fact, make predictions and postdictions that match reality with useful skill.

Second, you're making a prediction that our influence (presumably via CO2 emissions) are minuscule. You need to back this up with evidence.

False.

The warming actually accelerated. From 2008 to 2017 the troposphere warmed by 0.3C. The hydrosphere warmed by 100e21 joules with total geosphere uptake close to 110e21 joules (and that's being super conservative). This comes out to about +0.62 W/m2. The IPCC predicted the forcing would be 5.35 * ln(407/385) = +0.30 W/m2 during this period. So not only has the Earth continued to warm, but it has warmed at an accelerating pace. The IPCC underestimated the total heat uptake of the geosphere by a factor of 2x.

Furthermore, the IPCC also severely underestimated Arctic sea ice extent declines during this period. In 2001 in AR3 the IPCC predicted that Arctic sea ice extents would decline by 15% no earlier than 2040. It actually occurred in 2007 which is embarrassingly 33 years ahead of schedule and 6x faster than expected. The last 10 years has confirmed that this isn't just a fluke as sea ice extents continue to decline.

 

Fair enough, let's call it a reality

 

More from Dr. Curry who is an actual climate scientist.

Energy

The 2010s were the wind and solar decade. We observed stunning declines in the cost of both, although total deployment of wind and solar remains small—in 2019, wind and solar represented less than 9 percent of utility-scale electricity generation in the US. In the 2020s, cost declines will likely stall—wind and solar are already pretty cheap, so the declines of the past decade are not reproducible. Deployment, on the other hand, will accelerate.

Mass deployment of wind and solar will bring challenges. These sources are highly intermittent. When the wind suddenly stops blowing—which happens—we need a way to quickly make up the deficit. Each of the three electricity grids in the continental US—east, west, and Texas—has to remain in supply-demand balance every second of every day. We can use grid storage to smooth out some of the bumps, but storage remains expensive. To reach a grid powered entirely by today’s renewables, we would need storage at a price of $20 per kWh (with caveats).

That storage doesn’t all have to come from batteries, but let’s talk about batteries for a bit. Using Tesla’s grid-scale Powerpack as data, a 232 kWh battery today costs $125,793. That is a price of over $542/kWh. Through innovation, that pricetag will come down over the course of this decade, but improvements on the supply side could easily get swamped by increases in demand. After all, this decade will also include a huge shift toward electric vehicles, which I will discuss below. When demand outpaces supply, prices tend to stay high, even when there is impressive innovation. (continued here https://judithcurry.com/2021/01/02/looking-forward-new-technologies-in-the-2020s/#more-26837

 

~ We are freezing at night in California !

 

If you really want to freeze at night, visit Boise Idaho. No snow but below freezing temperatures.