New Book - Unsettled Science

[ChescoWx]

https://www.unsettledsciencebook.com/

 

Interesting new scientific review in the above book is coming out from another scientist.  I have already ordered! This will again attempt to correct the "settled science" voices depicted by some....as I always say it is of course not settled. Thought provoking point made in the upcoming liner notes "He dispels popular myths and unveils little-known truths: despite a dramatic rise in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures actually decreased from 1940 to 1970. What’s more, the models we use to predict the future aren’t able to accurately describe the climate of the past, suggesting they are deeply flawed. "

While my friends who are card carrying members of the "settled science" team will dismiss the author - this again underscores the point that if scientists continue to have dissenting views... backed up with real data - it is NOT settled science - in fact it is clearly up for debate. Settled science is the world is round...fact...man made climate change?? not fact.

[donsutherland1]

The period of cooling into the 1970s may have been the result of aerosols:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php

[chubbs]

Same old story from Koonin. He doesn't get any traction from scientists, but will probably sell some books.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/18/did-a-physicist-become-a-climate-truth-teller/

https://slate.com/technology/2014/10/the-wall-street-journal-and-steve-koonin-the-new-face-of-climate-change-inaction.html

[forkyfork]

On 5/2/2021 at 10:20 AM, ChescoWx said:

https://www.unsettledsciencebook.com/

 

Interesting new scientific review in the above book is coming out from another scientist.  I have already ordered! This will again attempt to correct the "settled science" voices depicted by some....as I always say it is of course not settled. Thought provoking point made in the upcoming liner notes "He dispels popular myths and unveils little-known truths: despite a dramatic rise in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures actually decreased from 1940 to 1970. What’s more, the models we use to predict the future aren’t able to accurately describe the climate of the past, suggesting they are deeply flawed. "

While my friends who are card carrying members of the "settled science" team will dismiss the author - this again underscores the point that if scientists continue to have dissenting views... backed up with real data - it is NOT settled science - in fact it is clearly up for debate. Settled science is the world is round...fact...man made climate change?? not fact.

they publish this crap to make money off gullible people like you

[ChescoWx]

Some interesting quotes,thoughts and facts from both the book and a Wall Street Journal opinion

https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653

 

Despite the expected predictable dismissal of the author by some on this forum already - the WSJ states "Mr. Koonin’s science credentials are impeccable—unlike, say, those of one well-known Swedish teenager to whom the media affords great attention on climate matters. He has been a professor of physics at Caltech and served as the top scientist in Barack Obama’s Energy Department. The book is copiously referenced and relies on widely accepted government documents.

"Mr. Koonin (The book's author) is no “climate denier,” to use the concocted phrase used to shut down debate. The word “denier” is of course meant to associate skeptics of climate alarmism with Holocaust deniers."

"Mr. Koonin is persuasively skeptical. It’s a big problem, he says, when models can’t retroactively “predict” events that have already happened. And he notes that some of the “tuning” done to models so that they work better amounts to “cooking the books.”

"But science itself is not conducted by polls, regardless of how often we are urged to heed a “scientific consensus” on climate. As the science-trained novelist Michael Crichton summarized in a famous 2003 lecture at Caltech: “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

“Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900” and “the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years"

"Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century"

Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago"

"But even if one remains unconvinced by his arguments, the right response is to debate the science. We’ll see if that happens in a world in which politicians assert the science is settled and plan astronomical levels of spending to replace the nation’s massive infrastructures with “green” alternatives. Never have so many spent so much public money on the basis of claims that are so unsettled. The prospects for a reasoned debate are not good. Good luck, Mr. Koonin."

 

 

[ChescoWx]

17 hours ago, forkyfork said:

they publish this crap to make money off gullible people like you

And it sounds like you are gullible enough to buy into the "settled science" when it is absolutely not factual and not settled.....

[ChescoWx]

On 5/2/2021 at 1:25 PM, donsutherland1 said:

The period of cooling into the 1970s may have been the result of aerosols:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php

Don, key point you make is true....may have been - facts are all that matter here

[A-L-E-K]

denier board shit

[Brian5671]

yeah we wouldn't want any opposing points of view.....get a grip people.

[ChescoWx]

36 minutes ago, A-L-E-K said:

denier board shit

LOL! whatever denier means....fact is the climate is - and always will be changing no denying that! Now speculation but not settled science is could man have some impact on the current warming cycle? That is of course far from a fact or settled science.

[ChescoWx]

4 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

yeah we wouldn't want any opposing points of view.....get a grip people.

Many (not all) folks on that side of the debate - often just break down and curse....they are not interesting in any discussion around what they consider "settled science". It is of course one of the biggest problems today - we don't like to debate or discuss - we would rather just shout someone down and curse at them - whether it be politics or trying to discuss whether or not there is man made climate change.....man made climate change is no matter how often it is said - not settled science or fact today - full stop

 

 

 

[Brian5671]

15 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Many (not all) folks on that side of the debate - often just break down and curse....they are not interesting in any discussion around what they consider "settled science". It is of course one of the biggest problems today - we don't like to debate or discuss - we would rather just shout someone down and curse at them - whether it be politics or trying to discuss whether or not there is man made climate change.....man made climate change is no matter how often it is said - not settled science or fact today - full stop

 

 

 

completely agree-especially with regard to any topic-any debate is somehow "offensive"   

[donsutherland1]

The issue isn’t that climate scientists or those who accept the scientific consensus on climate change seek to avoid debate or discussion. Rather, they expect that debate and discussion should be grounded in concrete evidence and that evidence-based conclusions carry greater weight than unsubstantiated beliefs.

There is currently overwhelming scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Empirical evidence includes warming surface (land and ocean) temperatures, increasing oceanic heat content, ice sheet mass loss, declining Arctic sea ice extent minima, increasing ocean acidification, a falling ratio of the C13 isotope relative to the C12 isotope, and measured increases in greenhouse gas forcing. 

Clear scientific understanding of climate change—what is happening (warming) and why it is happening (anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions)—now exists. The scientific debate over those two issues is finished if one surveys the recent literature. Debate about uncertainties, regional effects, attribution of specific extreme events, tipping points, etc., continues.

The burden of proof now squarely rests with those arguing that AGW is not real. The climate science community has effectively proved its case. Those arguing against AGW have produced no credible alternative explanation, much less one that has made it through peer review in a quality journal. Instead, they continue to recycle arguments from the past—it’s not happening, it’s not us, it’s not bad, and it’s too hard [to address climate change] (Elsasser and Dunlap, 2013)—even as greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow, atmospheric greenhouse gas forcing continues to increase, and the opportunity to limit warming grows shorter. This is the profound asymmetry in positions that now exists. The expectation that climate science would grant equivalence to beliefs not supported by the evidence is no more realistic than granting equivalence among those who see the Earth as a sphere and those who continue to insist that it is flat.

[rclab]

6 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The issue isn’t that climate scientists or those who accept the scientific consensus on climate change seek to avoid debate or discussion. Rather, they expect that debate and discussion should be grounded in concrete evidence and that evidence-based conclusions carry greater weight than unsubstantiated beliefs.

There is currently overwhelming scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Empirical evidence includes warming surface (land and ocean) temperatures, increasing oceanic heat content, ice sheet mass loss, declining Arctic sea ice extent minima, increasing ocean acidification, a falling ratio of the C13 isotope relative to the C12 isotope, and measured increases in greenhouse gas forcing. 

Clear scientific understanding of climate change—what is happening (warming) and why it is happening (anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions)—now exists. The scientific debate over those two issues is finished if one surveys the recent literature. Debate about uncertainties, regional effects, attribution of specific extreme events, tipping points, etc., continues.

The burden of proof now squarely rests with those arguing that AGW is not real. The climate science community has effectively proved its case. Those arguing against AGW have produced no credible alternative explanation, much less one that has made it through peer review in a quality journal. Instead, they continue to recycle arguments from the past—it’s not happening, it’s not us, it’s not bad, and it’s too hard [to address climate change] (Elsasser and Dunlap, 2013)—even as greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow, atmospheric greenhouse gas forcing continues to increase, and the opportunity to limit warming grows shorter. This is the profound asymmetry in positions that now exists. The expectation that climate science would grant equivalence to beliefs not supported by the evidence is no more realistic than granting equivalence among those who see the Earth as a sphere and those who continue to insist that it is flat.

Good morning, Don. I read a book, The Ends of the World: Volcanic Apocalypse, Lethal Oceans and Our Quest to Understand Earths Past Mass Extinctions, by Peter Brennan. It, to me, was not entertainment but a literal tour through the first 4+ billion years of our planets existence , the present and possibilities for the next 1.8 billion years. The author is a science journalist. His sources and interactions in his narrative are with Scientists. Geology, Paleontology and Astronomy were at the core. I was so moved that I even wrote a review for Amazon. I found Mr Brennan’s work disturbing and humbling. Be well, as always ... 

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, rclab said:

Good morning, Don. I read a book, The Ends of the World: Volcanic Apocalypse, Lethal Oceans and Our Quest to Understand Earths Past Mass Extinctions, by Peter Brennan. It, to me, was not entertainment but a literal tour through the first 4+ billion years of our planets existence , the present and possibilities for the next 1.8 billion years. The author is a science journalist. His sources and interactions in his narrative are with Scientists. Geology, Paleontology and Astronomy were at the core. I was so moved that I even wrote a review for Amazon. I found Mr Brennan’s work disturbing and humbling. Be well, as always ... 

For much of our planet's history it was uninhabitable.  Not only that the atmospheric composition was entirely different.

 

[chubbs]

18 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Many (not all) folks on that side of the debate - often just break down and curse....they are not interesting in any discussion around what they consider "settled science". It is of course one of the biggest problems today - we don't like to debate or discuss - we would rather just shout someone down and curse at them - whether it be politics or trying to discuss whether or not there is man made climate change.....man made climate change is no matter how often it is said - not settled science or fact today - full stop

 

 

 

Here is the American Meteorological Society statement on climate. I don't see any debate or disagreement. The debate is among non-scientists: conservative think tanks, politicians, science denial press (WSJ an example), blogs, etc.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-and-climate-change/

 

[rclab]

8 hours ago, rclab said:

Good morning, Don. I read a book, The Ends of the World: Volcanic Apocalypse, Lethal Oceans and Our Quest to Understand Earths Past Mass Extinctions, by Peter Brennan. It, to me, was not entertainment but a literal tour through the first 4+ billion years of our planets existence , the present and possibilities for the next 1.8 billion years. The author is a science journalist. His sources and interactions in his narrative are with Scientists. Geology, Paleontology and Astronomy were at the core. I was so moved that I even wrote a review for Amazon. I found Mr Brennan’s work disturbing and humbling. Be well, as always ... 

 

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

For much of our planet's history it was uninhabitable.  Not only that the atmospheric composition was entirely different.

 

Good morning Liberty. I agree. Mr. Brennan’s work did highlight the differences present/past in great detail as well as some differences amongst scientists opinions. He did not shy away from our own, present blink of a geologic eye, efficiency in changing/speeding up the natural flow. To me as a minimal knowledge layman it was more educational than editorial. When all was said and done after hundreds of pages, it was sad and poignant. As always ...

[ChescoWx]

Dr. Ryan Maue going off on the "new normal" of 90+ days and how they skew local climate stats - "I started looking at number of 90°F days in various cities accounting for the new "normal" and it is straight up urban heat island. Not surprising. Cities really need to get off their asses and plant trees and change the urban landscape to provide quicker evening cooling"

[forkyfork]

it's so depressing to watch people fall for grifters in real time

[chubbs]

Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin’s new book ’Unsettled’

Analysis of "‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate"
Published in The Wall Street Journal, by Mark P. Mills on 25 April 2021

Twelve scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be very low.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Inaccurate, Misleading.

 

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/wall-street-journal-article-repeats-multiple-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-made-in-steven-koonins-new-book-unsettled-steven-koonin/

[Hoosier]

18 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The issue isn’t that climate scientists or those who accept the scientific consensus on climate change seek to avoid debate or discussion. Rather, they expect that debate and discussion should be grounded in concrete evidence and that evidence-based conclusions carry greater weight than unsubstantiated beliefs.

There is currently overwhelming scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Empirical evidence includes warming surface (land and ocean) temperatures, increasing oceanic heat content, ice sheet mass loss, declining Arctic sea ice extent minima, increasing ocean acidification, a falling ratio of the C13 isotope relative to the C12 isotope, and measured increases in greenhouse gas forcing. 

Clear scientific understanding of climate change—what is happening (warming) and why it is happening (anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions)—now exists. The scientific debate over those two issues is finished if one surveys the recent literature. Debate about uncertainties, regional effects, attribution of specific extreme events, tipping points, etc., continues.

The burden of proof now squarely rests with those arguing that AGW is not real. The climate science community has effectively proved its case. Those arguing against AGW have produced no credible alternative explanation, much less one that has made it through peer review in a quality journal. Instead, they continue to recycle arguments from the past—it’s not happening, it’s not us, it’s not bad, and it’s too hard [to address climate change] (Elsasser and Dunlap, 2013)—even as greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow, atmospheric greenhouse gas forcing continues to increase, and the opportunity to limit warming grows shorter. This is the profound asymmetry in positions that now exists. The expectation that climate science would grant equivalence to beliefs not supported by the evidence is no more realistic than granting equivalence among those who see the Earth as a sphere and those who continue to insist that it is flat.

This is really where the debate should be focused at this point.

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, rclab said:

 

Good morning Liberty. I agree. Mr. Brennan’s work did highlight the differences present/past in great detail as well as some differences amongst scientists opinions. He did not shy away from our own, present blink of a geologic eye, efficiency in changing/speeding up the natural flow. To me as a minimal knowledge layman it was more educational than editorial. When all was said and done after hundreds of pages, it was sad and poignant. As always ...

What I find so amazing is how many things needed to go just right to develop life on this planet.

Having an oversized moon not the least of it.

[rclab]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

What I find so amazing is how many things needed to go just right to develop life on this planet.

Having an oversized moon not the least of it.

It makes you wonder if an alien intelligence used ‘intelligent design’. As always ....

[etudiant]

Life on earth began about as soon as the surface cooled enough to allow liquid water, so it seems a pretty quick process.

Intelligent life on the other hand took a little longer, many would say it still not yet here.

[Brian5671]

1 hour ago, etudiant said:

Life on earth began about as soon as the surface cooled enough to allow liquid water, so it seems a pretty quick process.

Intelligent life on the other hand took a little longer, many would say it still not yet here.

The internet has definitely dumbed down humanity....

[donsutherland1]

FYI, NOAA has a page devoted to billion dollar weather/climate disasters. The damages are adjusted for inflation. The 1981-2010 average was 5.0 per year. The 1991-2020 average is 8.6 per year. The 15-year average (2006-2020) is 11.8 per year.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/summary-stats/US/1981-2010

[tamarack]

17 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

FYI, NOAA has a page devoted to billion dollar weather/climate disasters. The damages are adjusted for inflation. The 1981-2010 average was 5.0 per year. The 1991-2020 average is 8.6 per year. The 15-year average (2006-2020) is 11.8 per year.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/summary-stats/US/1981-2010

From the wiki article on 1983 (emphasis mine):

The majority of the storm damage was from storm surge and wind. Damage was estimated at $308 million, the equivalent of $5.1 billion adjusted for inflation in 2016 dollars, making it among the most costly hurricanes to strike the U.S. mainland.^[22] It is estimated that, if an identical hurricane had struck in 2005, it would have caused $39.2 billion in damage due to changes in population and infrastructure.^[23]

Certainly the number and impact of events have been greatly affected by climate change, but some of the increase in gigabuck disasters might be due to the above.  Sandy affected considerably more area than 1938, but looking at pics and reading about the earlier storm makes the inflation-adjusted cost differences between the two storms hard to believe.   (From Google:  Sandy's damage totaled $70 BB in 2012 dollars, perhaps 15 times more than 1938.)

[bdgwx]

Does Koonin present a model of the climate system in his book that makes predictions from 1880-present that are better than say CMIP5 or CMIP6?

General relativity and quantum mechanics disagree by 120 orders of magnitude regarding the cosmological constant. It is called the worst prediction in all of science. But I trust you still feel that GR and QM are settled enough to continue relying on GPS to get you where you need to go or on MRI to diagnose a potentially serious medical issue you might have in the future. No?

Fine grained details regarding AGW are still heavily debated, but the fact that the planet is warming and that humans have played a significant role is about as settled as anything can get in science.

 

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, tamarack said:

From the wiki article on 1983 (emphasis mine):

The majority of the storm damage was from storm surge and wind. Damage was estimated at $308 million, the equivalent of $5.1 billion adjusted for inflation in 2016 dollars, making it among the most costly hurricanes to strike the U.S. mainland.^[22] It is estimated that, if an identical hurricane had struck in 2005, it would have caused $39.2 billion in damage due to changes in population and infrastructure.^[23]

Certainly the number and impact of events have been greatly affected by climate change, but some of the increase in gigabuck disasters might be due to the above.  Sandy affected considerably more area than 1938, but looking at pics and reading about the earlier storm makes the inflation-adjusted cost differences between the two storms hard to believe.   (From Google:  Sandy's damage totaled $70 BB in 2012 dollars, perhaps 15 times more than 1938.)

Yes, that plays a role. I believe there was a paper published last year that took that factor into consideration and still found a correlation with climate change.

[LibertyBell]

On 5/6/2021 at 3:37 PM, tamarack said:

From the wiki article on 1983 (emphasis mine):

The majority of the storm damage was from storm surge and wind. Damage was estimated at $308 million, the equivalent of $5.1 billion adjusted for inflation in 2016 dollars, making it among the most costly hurricanes to strike the U.S. mainland.^[22] It is estimated that, if an identical hurricane had struck in 2005, it would have caused $39.2 billion in damage due to changes in population and infrastructure.^[23]

Certainly the number and impact of events have been greatly affected by climate change, but some of the increase in gigabuck disasters might be due to the above.  Sandy affected considerably more area than 1938, but looking at pics and reading about the earlier storm makes the inflation-adjusted cost differences between the two storms hard to believe.   (From Google:  Sandy's damage totaled $70 BB in 2012 dollars, perhaps 15 times more than 1938.)

I think you mean 1938 not 1983