Where did you get your information about climate science? Do you rely on right-wing sources? I am asking you because just about everything that you have stated about climate science is incorrect. I agree that AGW is not settled science, but it is known with a very high probability that humans are the cause of all, or nearly all, of the global warming since 1950. Climate projections have been reasonably accurate since the late 1980's. A significant volcanic eruption would not negate the science and no one should hold climate scientists accountable for not being able to predict significant volcanic eruptions. Just because the climate has been warmer in the past and much colder in the past (when no humans existed), isn't an argument that humans can't cause the climate to get warmer or colder. This is one of the most popular "skeptical" arguments but it is based on faulty logic. The IPCC reports generally devote an entire section to attribution and this subject has been covered well in the mainstream press.
That's kind of like arguing that if forest fire heading for my house I don't need to do anything about it. Like it matters whether it was started by natural causes or arson? By your own admission you acknowledge the Earth has undergone previous periods of global arming and freezing. All of which had significant impacts on the global ecology including pre-historic humanity. Did it matter much when there were few hundred thousand of us living nomadic lives. Big picture long term? No. The problem now is there are or soon will be up to 10 billion of us on the planet. All concentrated in or around major population centers that have grown up under the currently existing climatic conditions and all reliant on utilizing existing water and agricultural resources. Change where those resources (food and water) can best be obtained because of changes to rainfall and temperature patterns and ALL those people will vote with their feet and try to move. Nature as whole wont care, it will adapt to virtually any change in climatic conditions. The question is can we. Finally I suggest you take a look at predictions about climate change on no more than 5-10 year time scales. Starting back in the 80's and then going forward from there. Predictions made about the second half of this century are alias going to be more inaccurate than ones made about say 2025-30. For the same reason as long term predictions re; the stock market or football games need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Noting that something happened before with or without humans doesn't demonstrate that humans are not causing it today. Since the dawn of the industrial age and the burning of fossil fuels humans began to significantly add to the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.It's enhanced the planets natural greenhouse effect in turn causing higher temperatures.
Human contributions to the carbon cycle are miniscule. Unless you can show no changes in all the other significant producers of CO2, this is just low ball fearmongering and blaming humanity for something it can't really do anything about...
Humans produce carbon dioxide faster than the oceans and biosphere can absorb it. This is from the IPCC AR5 report, Chapter 6, page 493. "With a very high confidence, the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and those arising from land use change are the dominant cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Several lines of evidence support this conclusion: • The observed decrease in atmospheric O2 content over past two decades and the lower O2 content in the northern compared to the SH are consistent with the burning of fossil fuels (see Figure 6.3 and Section 6.1.3.2; Keeling et al., 1996; Manning and Keeling, 2006). • CO2 from fossil fuels and from the land biosphere has a lower 13C/12C stable isotope ratio than the CO2 in the atmosphere. This induces a decreasing temporal trend in the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 concentration as well as, on annual average, slightly lower 13C/12C values in the NH (Figure 6.3). These signals are measured in the atmosphere. • Because fossil fuel CO2 is devoid of radiocarbon (14C), reconstructions of the 14C/C isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 from tree rings show a declining trend, as expected from the addition of fossil CO2 (Stuiver and Quay, 1981; Levin et al., 2010). Yet nuclear weapon tests in the 1950s and 1960s have been offsetting that declining trend signal by adding 14C to the atmosphere. Since this nuclear weapon induced 14C pulse in the atmosphere has been fading, the 14C/C isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 is observed to resume its declining trend (Naegler and Levin, 2009; Graven et al., 2012). • Most of the fossil fuel CO2 emissions take place in the industrialised countries north of the equator. Consistent with this, on annual average, atmospheric CO2 measurement stations in the NH record increasingly higher CO2 concentrations than stations in the SH, as witnessed by the observations from Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and the South Pole (see Figure 6.3). The annually averaged concentration difference between the two stations has increased in proportion of the estimated increasing difference in fossil fuel combustion emissions between the hemispheres (Figure 6.13; Keeling et al., 1989; Tans et al., 1989; Fan et al., 1999). • The rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and land use change was almost exponential, and the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere was also almost exponential and about half that of the emissions, consistent with a large body of evidence about changes of carbon inventory in each reservoir of the carbon cycle presented in this chapter." Plants and fossil fuels have lower carbon 13/carbon 12 ratios than the atmosphere and C13/C12 is roughly the same for plants as fossil fuels. Plants selectively prefer carbon dioxide with carbon 12 as opposed to the heavier isotopes. The IPCC AR5 report, page 468, states that atmospheric carbon dioxide level was stable for 7000 years prior to 1750: "Before the Human-Caused Perturbation During the last 7000 years prior to 1750, atmospheric CO2 from ice cores shows only very slow changes (increase) from 260 ppm to 280 ppm, in contrast to the human-caused increase of CO2 since pre-industrial times. The contribution of CO2 emissions from early anthropogenic land use is unlikely sufficient to explain the CO2 increase prior to 1750."
De Nile, it's not just a river in Egypt. SciAm - I used to read that in the Army, struggling to understand just about every article. By my second year in engineering I saw that it asserts a lot of bullshit and pretends to be a serious peer reviewed journal. It is not. Meta, uber fallacies. Let me ask you, do you have a degree in meteorology? Why use a five syllable word when a two syllable phrase is clearer? anthropogenic vs. man-made. Academia, they like their terminology. I wrote a paper once on heterogeneous catalysis and slipped in the word "crackalate" just for kicks. Good times..... And supposing our 20y heat wave is the beginning of the end of the world as we know it - how do cap and trade and carbon taxes on SUVs and airplane tickets fix it? There is currently one and only one sure way to replace fossil fuels on anything close to an industrial scale that would preclude the need for hydrocarbon based energy. It is solar. That's it. So if man-made warming will be the death of the planet, then it will not help that the EU and the US and Japan tax the **** out of "carbon". India, China, Africa, South America are on-board, or not, with these tax schemes? Where is the plan to take these revenues to fund solar? Link? Here's a link where Bowerbird tried to nail me about my complaint about the models not including RF - radiant forcing. She was all like, Ooops! Seems they have! And the ****ing article she cited said, nope, low confidence in the RF part of the model. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mperature-ever.567973/page-62#post-1071485882 Fund solar now. Fix our bridges now. You wanna talk about science denial? Explain 9/11. Three buildings collapse by obviously controlled demolitions, used as a false flag excuse to begin infinity wars, and AGW is your hot button issue?
1) It's a first step. You can forget cap and trade, it sucks. 2) That's one way to tell us you haven't spent much time on this. I live in New England, eventually we will all be getting Hydro Quebec, including our cars. Each area is going to need a different mix. We're in a transition, and we're going to need nuclear during that transitional phase. But we're still ignoring the quickest and easiest part: efficiency. 3) For this to happen, we're going to need some sort of global authority. 4) Most of the country will need to have a rebate on the carbon tax, although it doesn't have to be direct. (national health care would reduce expenses, using a carbon tax to partly fund it would be an indirect compensation. That's just one possibility, there are others). We need regional plans, and the means to develop them. Since the late 1800s the Modern world has been a case of figuring out what you need to do, and then go do it. The funding mostly won't come from the Carbon Tax. Welcome to MMT.
Ahhhh.... So not worth the effort to try and discuss stuff around here. You spent how many years of your life studying advanced mathematics? Calc 1, 2 and 3? De? Linear Algebra? How many mathematical models have you built? Transport Phenomena? Thermodynamics? Nuclear? Really? Safer than CO2 is it? Efficiency? What do you have in mind? Better insulated homes? What do you know about the efficiency of a co-gen plant? With a natural gas feedstock? It's practically the least carbon producing and most most efficient source of large scale industrial power on the planet. How will hydro fly airplanes? Not that solar will either. Seriously, what efficiencies have been left on the table?
1) Yeah, not hard to tell you're right on top of this stuff. 2) Efficiency is the low hanging fruit. Kinda amazing you're such an expert and you don't know about it. I'd ask you to get real, but there is no chance of that happening, now is there?
1) I assume you're referring to the efficiency of , lets say a Tesla compared to a Corvette. Is that what you are calling low hanging fruit? Why is is so difficult for you to provide examples of where we can improve efficiency? 2) I'm not sure why you choose to skip answering my questions and apparently prefer to flame bait. 3) Electric transportation only works one of two ways: batteries or with live power feeds that are pretty much currently only found in train infrastructures. Air and Sea transportation - what option is there to power these other than with refined liquid fuels? 4) Hydro Quebec is an impressive operation, but it only supplies about 10% of New England's grid. They've shutdown their one Nuke back in 2012. There is nothing green about nuclear power. We've got superfund sites all over the place with radioactive contaminated waste. Not to mention our brilliant military use of depleted uranium projectiles - but I digress. 5.1) I have spent a few hours looking into these consensus climate models. It doesn't take long to find out that they model ****ing sunshine with "low confidence". They admittedly model water vapor poorly. Water vapor is the number 1 GHG ffs. Yet we are to believe they model CO2 and methane with such high accuracy that they can predict the global average temperature increase 100y into the future? 100y? And the models do not adequately account for water vapor and sunshine (RF)? Really? 5.2) What's the status of the ozone hole these days? Since you like SciAm, apparently, in spite of banning freon, there are still holes in the ozone!!! North Pole’s Largest-ever Ozone Hole Finally Closes 6) I've also spent a few hours looking at solar power. One of the interesting things I learned is that, at 100% efficiency, the total solar energy that flows through a disc the size of the earth, over the span of about three days, matches the total amount of fossil fuel resources used to date as well as proven reserves. [1) Hmm, there's that concept again. I'd really and sincerely like to see you present your thoughts on the low hanging efficiency fruit.] Here is a cool conceptual model of a ~$100T design that could power the planet. https://turbofuture.com/industrial/Optimally-Powering-The-World-A-Solar-Hypothetical The Loster Plan
I was doing it 20 years ago. I'm also tired explaining the obvious to internet 'experts'. You're the expert, show us how it's done...
Where did the universe come from? Probably the most all enveloping mystery of all. But it is a mystery just like the origin of enzymes. Science is not absolute. It observes and measures and makes explanations for what it observes and measures. Sometimes those explanations change because they are found to be wrong. But to say that science doesn't have answers is just as wrong as suggesting that it is always right. And it deals with observations and measurements, unlike beliefs which arise from something someone said or wrote.
more flame bait? I assure you I am not an expert on anything. An expert is someone that knows more and more about less and less until finally they know everything about nothing. You simply can't back up your assertion that efficiency improvements will save the Earth from AGW. Internet 'experts'... Good For You.
If you had done your homework, you would know that improving efficiency is just a first step, one of many. We will need to improve the efficiency of everything, and dramatically. That means, among other things, redesigning cities.
Ah, my homework.... You just can't help yourself? If we can just crack 100%, eh? What is the efficient redesign of cites? Does it involve concrete?
There is no such thing as settled science. The entire scientific process is about disproving previous assumptions.
That is wrong. We have vast areas of agreement, at what temp paper burns, for example. Most science works outward from those areas. If you are using Kuhn as your reference, you can find work opposing him in a number of disciplines. Btw, settled doesn't mean permanent, it means that community of scientists is using that information, perhaps as a reference. We have observations of warming going back to the 70s, so we have nearly a half century of observation. That has been challenged, of course, but it easily withstood the challenges.
Science is never 100% settled - science is about narrowing uncertainty. Different areas of science are understood with varying degrees of certainty. For example, we have a lower understanding of the effect of aerosols while we have a high understanding of the warming effect of carbon dioxide. Poorly understood aspects of climate change do not change the fact that a great deal of climate science is well understood. https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science-intermediate.htm
You didn't pay attention to what I wrote, you just grabbed something you thought supported your position. It does not. You just went from science being all about disproving assumptions to narrowing uncertainty. My fave philosopher of science is Ronald N Giere: https://www.amazon.com/Ronald-N-Gie...keywords=ronald+n+giere&qid=1599964069&sr=8-2
I'm not the guy trying to rewrite science. I've seen this nonsense for a generation. Propgandists like Koch feed you BS, you parrot. It doesn't change the science. But look at it this way, publish in a journal, upending a generation of work, and you'd be a natural candidate for a Nobel. I make the little joke. Sleazy propaganda is all about disrupting the politics. It's been done before, by Nazis, tobacco companies that wanted to keep killing their customers, etc. Actually, they all share that trait.
Actually, there are nuclear options which are, considered on the whole, "green." Though I don't claim to be an expert, native intelligence is all that is required for one to understand them. They extract the energy (radiation) from rods used in other types of nuclear plants which are now considered waste, but which are still highly radioactive. I'd be surprised if you hadn't come across (since you've obviously done a lot more technical reading than the average person) the first iteration of these, which began in the 1950's, under the U.S. military, called MSRs (molten salt reactors). The later variation, which I believe is the one I heard discussed on a documentary on nuclear power a number of years ago (probably on PBS) is called a WAMSR (WASTE ANNIHILATING molten salt reactor). What I really like about their design is that they're idiot-proofed: excessive heat causes the reaction to automatically stop (due to reduced levels of the catalyst). They can also be used w/ either uranium or thorium leftovers from light-water reactors. The name of the company promoting them is Transatomic, founded by 2 former MIT researchers, Leslie Dewan & Mark Massie. Here's a link to a science-site that explains all in more detail: https://gizmodo.com/the-future-of-nuclear-power-runs-on-the-waste Lastly, in trying to find the name of that safer & more practical type of nuclear reactor, I also stumbled upon the website, "Inverse," touting Bill Gates' nuclear power venture (called a traveling wave reactor), through a company called, "Terra Power." I don't know enough about it to render an appraisal, but it is another attempt at using up radioactive nuclear waste rods.
Again, nothing but more shade.... And best of all you've now more or less called me a Koch Nazi Malboro Man..... Shout out to @Lee S for making me aware of Godwin's Law
