Wow, a new perspective for me on climate change. I just have not been doing any research on this, and mostly accepted the MSM narrative. They blame every hurricane, every wildfire, every flood, every drought (every earthquake ?) on CO2. I knew that was ridiculous, but I still assumed there was good statistical evidence to back up the narrative. Also, seeing idiots like Senator Snowball proving climate change was a hoax, made me think all skeptics were idiots.
A few years ago I posted a question on SkepticalScience dot com - why is climate change always bad? - and got drummed out of the forum. Keep up the good work, Jack. Your engineering perspective is what we need.
This is the first of your posts that I have read. Very well stated and measured. I would only note that the models are running consistently too hot and that 2 to 3 C by 2100 is probably too high.
RSS analyses of the satellite lower troposphere data is accepted by teh climate establishment, RSS are showing about 0.18C/decade rise. The model mean is around 0.27C/decade. Dumbly extrapolate that difference out 70 years and you are looking at a 0.6C possible over-estimate.
Interesting article. Richard Lindzen argues that warming isn't magnified at high latitudes (see high YouTube interview by Jordan Peterson for example) - recent study on no Antarctic warming in last 70yrs suggests the same. Also no mention of the effects of water vapour on the greenhouse effect - the most prevalent and impactful gas of all. Finally as @FamedCelebrity (William M Briggs) explains the whole debate tends to miss out the issues of uncertainty, in this case the multiplicative effect of;
A - Will the model predictions materialise? IMO the track records suggest this is very low
B - Will the predicted impact of the climate model forecast materialise? Ditto
C - Will the planned intervention to save the forecast impact, actually work? Centrally planned initiatives must have some of the lowest success rates of all
A x B x C = risk we are facing.
Low probability x low probability x very, very low probability = We're OK as far as man made impacts go.
IMO all we are experiencing is natural variability with minor impact from man. The catastrophisers moved from Global Cooling (1970s after c30yrs of cooling) to Global Warming (1990s after c20yrs of warming) to Climate Change (2000s after a long temperature pause) and more recently Climate Crisis/Emergency all to gain power and money. TBF they are doing a good job at it.
Really enjoyed this piece. Very measured and sensible
Wow, a new perspective for me on climate change. I just have not been doing any research on this, and mostly accepted the MSM narrative. They blame every hurricane, every wildfire, every flood, every drought (every earthquake ?) on CO2. I knew that was ridiculous, but I still assumed there was good statistical evidence to back up the narrative. Also, seeing idiots like Senator Snowball proving climate change was a hoax, made me think all skeptics were idiots.
A few years ago I posted a question on SkepticalScience dot com - why is climate change always bad? - and got drummed out of the forum. Keep up the good work, Jack. Your engineering perspective is what we need.
This is the first of your posts that I have read. Very well stated and measured. I would only note that the models are running consistently too hot and that 2 to 3 C by 2100 is probably too high.
Probably. Check out https://remss.com/research/climate
RSS analyses of the satellite lower troposphere data is accepted by teh climate establishment, RSS are showing about 0.18C/decade rise. The model mean is around 0.27C/decade. Dumbly extrapolate that difference out 70 years and you are looking at a 0.6C possible over-estimate.
Interesting article. Richard Lindzen argues that warming isn't magnified at high latitudes (see high YouTube interview by Jordan Peterson for example) - recent study on no Antarctic warming in last 70yrs suggests the same. Also no mention of the effects of water vapour on the greenhouse effect - the most prevalent and impactful gas of all. Finally as @FamedCelebrity (William M Briggs) explains the whole debate tends to miss out the issues of uncertainty, in this case the multiplicative effect of;
A - Will the model predictions materialise? IMO the track records suggest this is very low
B - Will the predicted impact of the climate model forecast materialise? Ditto
C - Will the planned intervention to save the forecast impact, actually work? Centrally planned initiatives must have some of the lowest success rates of all
A x B x C = risk we are facing.
Low probability x low probability x very, very low probability = We're OK as far as man made impacts go.
IMO all we are experiencing is natural variability with minor impact from man. The catastrophisers moved from Global Cooling (1970s after c30yrs of cooling) to Global Warming (1990s after c20yrs of warming) to Climate Change (2000s after a long temperature pause) and more recently Climate Crisis/Emergency all to gain power and money. TBF they are doing a good job at it.
Disappointing article. Accepting IPCC predictions at face value might keep you off the cancel list but it isn't good science.