New Book - Unsettled Science

[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 Sandy caused $60 billion in damage.

[LibertyBell]

On 5/5/2021 at 6:10 PM, 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.

No it did not.  The original earth was way too toxic for life, it was vastly different than the planet we have today.  It took 2 billion years for the first unicellular life to develop (the planet is 4.6 billion years old) and those were methanogens (cyanobacteria also known as blue-green algae) and those were needed before anything else could evolve because they are the ones who set the changes into motion that we needed to get more complex life.  We didn't even have multicellular life for billions of years after that, let alone intelligent life.

https://lco.global/spacebook/astrobiology/when-did-life-develop-and-what-were-conditions-early-earth/#:~:text=Some scientists claim life developed,recycled into the Earth's crust.

 

The first irrefutable examples of life on Earth arose around 2.7 billion years ago. Some scientists claim life developed as long ago as 3.5 billion years. This is difficult to study and even more difficult to prove or disprove because rocks on Earth are weathered and recycled into the Earth’s crust. Rocks from so long ago are very difficult to find and only a few have been discovered.

 

The early Earth’s atmosphere had a very low concentration of oxygen compared to today. 2.4 billion years ago, the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere was less than one part per billion and the iron concentration in the ocean was much higher than today. Starting 3 billion years ago and lasting for at least a billion years, soluble iron (Fe²⁺) in the ocean collected any freely available oxygen, and formed ferric iron (Fe³⁺) which is a solid, also known as rust. Eventually most of the iron in the oceans was depleted and the oxygen level in the atmosphere and in the water began to slowly increase. After about a billion years, the oxygen level had reached a few percent of the total atmospheric pressure.

Then about 500 million years ago, there was a relatively rapid increase in the atmospheric oxygen content. This began when an ancient relative of cyanobacteria evolved the ability to use sunlight and water for photosynthesis, creating oxygen as a by-product. Over the next few hundred million years, the oxygen content in the atmosphere rose to nearly its current value of 18%.

Until this development, all life on Earth must have existed either under at least several centimeters of water or underground. The ozone layer, which blocks most of the damaging ultraviolet light from the Sun, did not exist, so any organism on the surface of the Earth would have been killed by the ultraviolet light. As the oxygen content of the atmosphere increased, the ozone layer formed and began to shield the surface of the Earth from the harmful ultraviolet light. This allowed life forms to evolve to survive on the surface of the oceans and on land, and also allowed organisms who metabolize oxygen (like us!) to develop.

[LibertyBell]

On 5/5/2021 at 6:10 PM, 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.

although I do agree about lack of intelligent life on this planet lol.  To be honest some animals seem to be far more intelligent and empathetic than most humans.

I found this endearing.  It has taken animal behavioral scientists decades to realize animals have intelligence, feelings, sentience and empathy.

 

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animal-odd-couples-meet-the-odd-couples/8025/

 

Charlie and Jack

Jack, a 16-year-old goat, formed an touching relationship with Charlie, a blind 40-year-old horse. Jack essentially became Charlie’s eyes, and would lead him around the ranch property where they both lived.

 

the full story about Jack and Charlie and what amazes me is that the horse was first blind in only one eye and the goat knew it and he would adjust his walk to walk on one side so he wouldnt block the horse's good eye

 

 

later on when the horse became blind in both eyes he walked dead center to guide him straight to the food

 

 

and after the horse passed away the goat would go there by himself and not eat just stand there contemplating about his old friend

 

 

when the goat passed away he was buried right next to his best friend

[Bhs1975]

No it did not.  The original earth was way too toxic for life, it was vastly different than the planet we have today.  It took 2 billion years for the first unicellular life to develop (the planet is 4.6 billion years old) and those were methanogens (cyanobacteria also known as blue-green algae) and those were needed before anything else could evolve because they are the ones who set the changes into motion that we needed to get more complex life.  We didn't even have multicellular life for billions of years after that, let alone intelligent life.

https://lco.global/spacebook/astrobiology/when-did-life-develop-and-what-were-conditions-early-earth/#:~:text=Some scientists claim life developed,recycled into the Earth's crust.

 

The first irrefutable examples of life on Earth arose around 2.7 billion years ago. Some scientists claim life developed as long ago as 3.5 billion years. This is difficult to study and even more difficult to prove or disprove because rocks on Earth are weathered and recycled into the Earth’s crust. Rocks from so long ago are very difficult to find and only a few have been discovered.

 

The early Earth’s atmosphere had a very low concentration of oxygen compared to today. 2.4 billion years ago, the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere was less than one part per billion and the iron concentration in the ocean was much higher than today. Starting 3 billion years ago and lasting for at least a billion years, soluble iron (Fe²⁺) in the ocean collected any freely available oxygen, and formed ferric iron (Fe³⁺) which is a solid, also known as rust. Eventually most of the iron in the oceans was depleted and the oxygen level in the atmosphere and in the water began to slowly increase. After about a billion years, the oxygen level had reached a few percent of the total atmospheric pressure.

Then about 500 million years ago, there was a relatively rapid increase in the atmospheric oxygen content. This began when an ancient relative of cyanobacteria evolved the ability to use sunlight and water for photosynthesis, creating oxygen as a by-product. Over the next few hundred million years, the oxygen content in the atmosphere rose to nearly its current value of 18%.

Until this development, all life on Earth must have existed either under at least several centimeters of water or underground. The ozone layer, which blocks most of the damaging ultraviolet light from the Sun, did not exist, so any organism on the surface of the Earth would have been killed by the ultraviolet light. As the oxygen content of the atmosphere increased, the ozone layer formed and began to shield the surface of the Earth from the harmful ultraviolet light. This allowed life forms to evolve to survive on the surface of the oceans and on land, and also allowed organisms who metabolize oxygen (like us!) to develop.

I'm willing to bet this scenario plays out all over the universe and we are being visited and our DNA tinkered with by aliens millions of years ahead of us.

[Typhoon Tip]

The cooling in the 70s also correlated with a resonate superposition in solar minimums - not as extreme as now ... but in the the 11 and 22 year cycles ... 

just fwiw

[tamarack]

12 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I think Sandy caused $60 billion in damage.

I've read $80 million too, but a quick search took the middle road.  (And I need to proofread more thoroughly.)

[ChescoWx]

On 5/6/2021 at 8:06 PM, bdgwx said:

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?

Also...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. Am I wrong?

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.

 

settled....of course not

[chubbs]

12 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

settled....of course not

If you don't think the main tenets are settled, then you are not exposing yourself to scientific information.  A book that is labeled misleading by scientists, isn't strong evidence for anything. Below are a couple of statements from scientific organizations:

American Meteorological Society:

Scientific evidence indicates that the leading cause of climate change in the most recent half century is the anthropogenic increase in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO₂), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide.

https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change1/

American Geophysical Union:

Extensive observations document that the global average surface temperature in the atmosphere and ocean has increased by about 1°C (1.8°F) from 1880 to 2018. The current decade is now the hottest in the history of modern civilization. Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no altenrative explanation supported by convincing evidence.

https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Position_Climate

[bdgwx]

13 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

settled....of course not

Fundamentals....yes.

Details...no.

And by "settled" we mean in the same way anything in science is settled. It doesn't mean we have perfect knowledge or understanding. We never will. But we do know enough to draw conclusions with high confidence.

There is a lot of uncertainty on the climate sensitivity. There is a lot of uncertainty on the attribution on individual climate forcing agents. There is a lot of uncertainty on regional effects. There is a lot of uncertainty on a variety of aspects of climate change. But we know that the planet is warming and that humans play a significant role. That part is settled.

 

[TimB]

On 5/4/2021 at 8:39 AM, ChescoWx said:

"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."

You lost me with this ridiculous, nonsense insinuation by the WSJ that we use the term “climate deniers” in a deliberate attempt to equate people who don’t believe in climate change to Holocaust deniers.

On second thought, one could successfully make the argument that both are equally wrong, detrimental to society, and sociopathic, so if the shoe fits.

[rclab]

On 5/8/2021 at 7:08 PM, LibertyBell said:

although I do agree about lack of intelligent life on this planet lol.  To be honest some animals seem to be far more intelligent and empathetic than most humans.

I found this endearing.  It has taken animal behavioral scientists decades to realize animals have intelligence, feelings, sentience and empathy.

 

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animal-odd-couples-meet-the-odd-couples/8025/

 

Charlie and Jack

Jack, a 16-year-old goat, formed an touching relationship with Charlie, a blind 40-year-old horse. Jack essentially became Charlie’s eyes, and would lead him around the ranch property where they both lived.

 

the full story about Jack and Charlie and what amazes me is that the horse was first blind in only one eye and the goat knew it and he would adjust his walk to walk on one side so he wouldnt block the horse's good eye

 

 

later on when the horse became blind in both eyes he walked dead center to guide him straight to the food

 

 

and after the horse passed away the goat would go there by himself and not eat just stand there contemplating about his old friend

 

 

when the goat passed away he was buried right next to his best friend

Good morning Liberty. It’s encouraging that the sentient species that recognized, followed and recorded this relationship has evolved enough to give honor to fellow creatures by keeping them together after their passing. As always ....

[LibertyBell]

9 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Fundamentals....yes.

Details...no.

And by "settled" we mean in the same way anything in science is settled. It doesn't mean we have perfect knowledge or understanding. We never will. But we do know enough to draw conclusions with high confidence.

There is a lot of uncertainty on the climate sensitivity. There is a lot of uncertainty on the attribution on individual climate forcing agents. There is a lot of uncertainty on regional effects. There is a lot of uncertainty on a variety of aspects of climate change. But we know that the planet is warming and that humans play a significant role. That part is settled.

 

so is the part about air pollution and the current mass extinction event

 

[chubbs]

23 hours ago, TimB84 said:

You lost me with this ridiculous, nonsense insinuation by the WSJ that we use the term “climate deniers” in a deliberate attempt to equate people who don’t believe in climate change to Holocaust deniers.

On second thought, one could successfully make the argument that both are equally wrong, detrimental to society, and sociopathic, so if the shoe fits.

Climate deniers playing the victim card are the only people I've seen raise the holocaust in a climate discussion.  WSJ the most recent example.

[StormchaserChuck!]

On 5/5/2021 at 12:15 PM, wxtrix said:

here are some fact-based criticism of that garbage book:

 

----------------------------------------------------

Here are five statements Koonin makes in “Unsettled” that mainstream climate scientists say are misleading, incorrect or undercut by current research:

1. “The warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.”

The average annual temperature in the contiguous U.S. has increased from 0.7 degrees to 1.0 degrees Celsius (1.2 to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the start of the 20th century. The year 2020 was the fifth-warmest year in the 126-year record for the contiguous U.S. And the five warmest years on record have occurred since 2012, NOAA reports.

There is a more marked increase in nighttime lows than in daytime highs (the “warmest” temperatures) because of factors like the cooling effect of daytime aerosol pollution and soil moisture evaporation. 

2. “Most types of extreme weather events don’t show any significant change—and some such events have actually become less common or severe—even as human influences on the climate grow.”

There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. Some regions have experienced more intense and longer droughts, while in other places, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter. Marine heatwaves, periods of extremely high ocean temperatures in specific regions, have become more than 20 times more frequent over the last 40 years due to human activity and the burning of greenhouse gases, according to a 2020 study that relied on satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures. 

3.  “Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century.”

In 2020, scientists detected a trend of increasing hurricane intensity since 1979 that is consistent with what models have projected would result from human-driven global warming. Rapid intensification of hurricanes has increased in the Atlantic basin since the 1980s, which federal researchers showed in 2019 is attributable to warming. A 2018 study showed that Hurricane Harvey, which hit Houston the prior year, could not have produced so much rain without human-induced climate change. That same year, a separate study showed that increased stalling of tropical cyclones is a global trend. 

4.  “Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.”

Scientific findings indicate with high confidence that the Greenland ice sheet, the world’s second-largest land-based ice reservoir, has lost ice, contributing to sea level rise over the last two decades. And Greenland is on track to lose more ice this century than at any other time in the 12,000-year Holocene, the epoch encompassing human history, scientists reported in 2020.

The rate of ice melt in Greenland has varied widely over the decades, and there is evidence of a period of rapid melting in the 1930s that exceeded the rate of today. But the 1930s-era melt affected fewer glaciers, mostly those located entirely on land. Today’s melting involves more glaciers, most of them connected to the sea, with average ice loss more than double that of the earlier period. 

5. “The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.

Global warming is very likely to have exacerbated global economic inequality, with the disparities between poor and wealthy countries 25 percent greater than in a world without warming, researchers concluded in 2019.

Only a limited number of studies have calculated the aggregate economic impact of climate change, not enough to place confidence in numeric results. But the data indicates with high confidence that climate change will aggravate other stressors, like inadequate housing, food or water supplies, with negative outcomes especially for the poor.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04052021/dissecting-unsettled-a-skeptical-physicists-book-about-climate-science/

-------------------------------------------

feel free to dispute these with facts, not WSJ editorials by climate deniers or blurbs from the jacket of the garbage book itself.

SPOILER ALERT:   you can't.

So what?

[raindancewx]

I don't get why people are so obsessed either way with the climate stuff. It's a one directional trend being super-imposed on a chaotic, highly variable system. The variable system is the interesting part, not the one-directional trend. Obsessing over whether the change is x, or x+0.5C or x-0.5C over some arbitrary period is pretty ridiculous given that everyone lives on a single point on the Earth and doesn't ever experience the global average temperature. Figuring out the specific regional trends on small time scales is way more interesting than figuring out that Atlanta will overall be 1F warmer in 100 years while the North Pole will be 5F warmer.

[csnavywx]

On 5/11/2021 at 6:43 AM, chubbs said:

Climate deniers playing the victim card are the only people I've seen raise the holocaust in a climate discussion.  WSJ the most recent example.

Manufactured aggrievement syndrome. It's rampant nowadays amongst this and similar overlapping groups.

[csnavywx]

On 5/4/2021 at 12:25 PM, A-L-E-K said:

denier board shit

It's amazing that after all this time they still exist. Propaganda works. Same tactics as the tobacco companies used to use.

[rclab]

On 5/5/2021 at 12:15 PM, wxtrix said:

here are some fact-based criticism of that garbage book:

 

----------------------------------------------------

Here are five statements Koonin makes in “Unsettled” that mainstream climate scientists say are misleading, incorrect or undercut by current research:

1. “The warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.”

The average annual temperature in the contiguous U.S. has increased from 0.7 degrees to 1.0 degrees Celsius (1.2 to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the start of the 20th century. The year 2020 was the fifth-warmest year in the 126-year record for the contiguous U.S. And the five warmest years on record have occurred since 2012, NOAA reports.

There is a more marked increase in nighttime lows than in daytime highs (the “warmest” temperatures) because of factors like the cooling effect of daytime aerosol pollution and soil moisture evaporation. 

2. “Most types of extreme weather events don’t show any significant change—and some such events have actually become less common or severe—even as human influences on the climate grow.”

There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. Some regions have experienced more intense and longer droughts, while in other places, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter. Marine heatwaves, periods of extremely high ocean temperatures in specific regions, have become more than 20 times more frequent over the last 40 years due to human activity and the burning of greenhouse gases, according to a 2020 study that relied on satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures. 

3.  “Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century.”

In 2020, scientists detected a trend of increasing hurricane intensity since 1979 that is consistent with what models have projected would result from human-driven global warming. Rapid intensification of hurricanes has increased in the Atlantic basin since the 1980s, which federal researchers showed in 2019 is attributable to warming. A 2018 study showed that Hurricane Harvey, which hit Houston the prior year, could not have produced so much rain without human-induced climate change. That same year, a separate study showed that increased stalling of tropical cyclones is a global trend. 

4.  “Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.”

Scientific findings indicate with high confidence that the Greenland ice sheet, the world’s second-largest land-based ice reservoir, has lost ice, contributing to sea level rise over the last two decades. And Greenland is on track to lose more ice this century than at any other time in the 12,000-year Holocene, the epoch encompassing human history, scientists reported in 2020.

The rate of ice melt in Greenland has varied widely over the decades, and there is evidence of a period of rapid melting in the 1930s that exceeded the rate of today. But the 1930s-era melt affected fewer glaciers, mostly those located entirely on land. Today’s melting involves more glaciers, most of them connected to the sea, with average ice loss more than double that of the earlier period. 

5. “The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.

Global warming is very likely to have exacerbated global economic inequality, with the disparities between poor and wealthy countries 25 percent greater than in a world without warming, researchers concluded in 2019.

Only a limited number of studies have calculated the aggregate economic impact of climate change, not enough to place confidence in numeric results. But the data indicates with high confidence that climate change will aggravate other stressors, like inadequate housing, food or water supplies, with negative outcomes especially for the poor.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04052021/dissecting-unsettled-a-skeptical-physicists-book-about-climate-science/

-------------------------------------------

feel free to dispute these with facts, not WSJ editorials by climate deniers or blurbs from the jacket of the garbage book itself.

SPOILER ALERT:   you can't.

It sorta reminds me of the ‘Ignorance’ based sources that warned us in our youth that if we continued to practice a particular type of behavior we would lose our sight. Of course our retort was “Can we do it just until we need glasses. Well at least I know how the ignorance based sources evolved and found relevance. As always ......

[LibertyBell]

On 5/5/2021 at 11:43 AM, chubbs said:

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/

WSJ and even Bloomberg News have a history of doing stuff like this.

 

Dont trust Wall Street about anything when it comes to science.

 

[LibertyBell]

10 hours ago, csnavywx said:

It's amazing that after all this time they still exist. Propaganda works. Same tactics as the tobacco companies used to use.

They all know how to brainwash the ignorant.

 

[donsutherland1]

11 hours ago, csnavywx said:

It's amazing that after all this time they still exist. Propaganda works. Same tactics as the tobacco companies used to use.

Here’s a new paper on this subject:

https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00233-5?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2590332221002335%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

[raindancewx]

My guess is no one in this thread has read the book.

[bdgwx]

The book Merchants of Doubt has a good rundown of how the rhetoric and strategies are echoed across multiple public interest topics. In fact, many players in the space offered their services across the gambit of these topics ranging from DDT and environmental harm to the link between smoking and cancer to climate change among other topics.

[ChescoWx]

On 5/11/2021 at 6:43 AM, chubbs said:

Climate deniers playing the victim card are the only people I've seen raise the holocaust in a climate discussion.  WSJ the most recent example.

scary views here.....sad for our country - debate is not encouraged anymore.....

[ChescoWx]

https://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2021/05/20/facebook-fact-checkers-punish-and-censor-debate-on-climate-science-n2589647

Let's silence scientist who are not lock step with the narrative.....scary times we live in

[TimB]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

scary views here.....sad for our country - debate is not encouraged anymore.....

The only scary view here is the WSJ’s ludicrous and baseless accusation that anyone who believes climate change is real is comparing climate deniers to Holocaust deniers.

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

scary views here.....sad for our country - debate is not encouraged anymore.....

Huh? Did I say anything about not encouraging debate. I strongly support honest debate. You can deny science all you want, but don't whine and cry when you are called a science denier.  If the WSJ's position was supported by science, they would site science in defense, instead they play the victim card.

 

 

[Nickysixes]

Another perspective on climate change and the greenhouse gas silliness. The insinuation is that the cooling and heating of our planet is solar induced which makes perfect sense if you have a cursory understanding of atmospheric physics...

https://www.brighteon.com/ab3515ec-c725-47ee-a5e5-5896371d6279

[bdgwx]

19 hours ago, Nickysixes said:

Another perspective on climate change and the greenhouse gas silliness. The insinuation is that the cooling and heating of our planet is solar induced which makes perfect sense if you have a cursory understanding of atmospheric physics...

https://www.brighteon.com/ab3515ec-c725-47ee-a5e5-5896371d6279

This is not just another perspective on climate change. It is factually incorrect in the same way claims of table top cold fusion and n-rays are incorrect. This is egregious enough that it rises to the level of disinformation.

Let me correct some factually incorrect information I heard in this video. Note that this may not be an exhaustive list, but I did my best to spot each misleading, misinformation, or disinformation (most of it) tidbit.

** Disinformation: Nature has produced 97% of the 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Fact: Humans pumped nearly 330 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere. Of this 330 ppm pumped into the atmosphere nature buffered about 195 ppm for us in the land and ocean leaving 135 ppm in the atmosphere. Humans are responsible for 32% of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere and 100% of the rise from 280 to 415 ppm. And if Mother Nature hadn't lent a helping hand we'd actually be responsible for almost 55% of the 610 ppm that would have occurred had 195 ppm not been buffered. The mistake the commentator in the video makes is that they conflate carbon emission in units of ppm/yr or GtC/yr (4% human, 96% natural) with carbon mass ppm or GtC (without the /yr part). A ~4% increase in inflow flux to the atmosphere with only a ~2% increase in outflow flux over many years will add up rather quickly.  

Sources: Global Carbon Project - Friedlingstein 2020 

** Disinformation: Sea level is not rising by more than 1 mm/yr.

Fact: Sea level is rising by about 3.5 mm/yr now and it has accelerated in recent decades. 

Sources: Dangendorf 2019, and NASA Vital Signs Page, and IPCC SROCC

** Disinformation: Solar activity explains the warming observed today.

Fact: Solar activity peaked in 1958 and has been flat to even declining ever since. This happened during a period when the warming became most acute. Furthermore like all main sequence stars the Sun brightens with age yet the Earth has cooled and even entered into the on-going Quaternary Ice Age since the Eocene Climate Optimum 55 MYA.

Sources: SORCE - Kopp 2011 and NASA Vital Signs Page, and Berkeley Earth, and Gough 1981, and various sources.

** Disinformation: Scientists concluded that CO2 has no warming potential.

Fact: CO2's warming potential was convincingly demonstrated in the 1800's. The first climate models appeared in the 1800's and even CO2's climate sensitivity was first estimated prior to 1900. Even Arrhenius' 1908 calculation (which is said to be quite laborious) of 4C at 2xCO2 is considered be a reasonable prediction even today.

Sources: Tyndall 1861, Arrhenius 1896, Chamberlin 1897, Chamberlin 1899, Arrhenius 1908, Pekeris 1929, Callendar 1938, Callendar 1949, Plass 1956 (a, b, and c), Callendar 1961, Manabe 1961, Manabe 1967, Budyko 1969, Sellers 1969, Charney 1979, Ramanathan 1985, Hansen 1988, Myhre 1998, Schmidt 2010, IPCC AR5 WG1 Sherwood 2020, and the list goes on and on and on. I haven't even scratched the surface on all of the lines of evidence confirming over and over again that CO2 puts a positive radiative force on the planet.

** Misinformation: A Sun driven cooling period is imminent.

Fact: Not even a solar grand minimum will reverse global warming. The current Earth Energy Imbalance is +0.8 W/m^2. A solar grand minimum might put about -0.3 W/m^2 of force on the planet. Cumulative CO2 forcing alone is +2.0 W/m^2 with another +1.7 W/m^2 expected if concentrations hit 560 ppm. There have been a few sun driven cooling prediction in the last few decades. Obviously none of them panned out. 

Source:  Schuckmann 2020, and Myhre 1998, and Owens 2017, and Anet 2013, and SORCE - Kopp 2011

** Misleading: CO2 levels have been this high in the past.

Fact: Yeah, like more than a million years ago. And note that high CO2 levels in the past were required to offset the lower solar luminosity. 600 MYA the solar forcing was -12 W/m^2 relative to today. CO2 levels would have had to been around 4,000 ppm just to maintain an offset of +12 W/m^2 to balance the lower solar flux. CO2 is an essential piece of the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun problem, the PETM, other hyperthermal events, magnitude of the glacial cycles, etc.

Source: GEOCARB III - Berner 2001 and Gough 1981, and NASA Vital Signs Page

 

 

[csnavywx]

21 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

https://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2021/05/20/facebook-fact-checkers-punish-and-censor-debate-on-climate-science-n2589647

Let's silence scientist who are not lock step with the narrative.....scary times we live in

It's not a debate when one "side" refuses to acquiesce to any standard of falsifiability. As I've said several times over the years in this forum, I challenge anyone still not convinced by the current theory of the field to state the conditions under which they would change their minds. If you cannot think of a scenario under which you would, then that's faith, not science. If you want to be taken seriously scientifically, then state it. No goalpost moving. It's okay to discard and then amend or re-think your hypothesis after updating your priors. Nobody should fault you for that. However, I (and others) will absolutely fault you if you continue to demand to be taken seriously when you refuse to update your priors and refuse any standard of falsifiability. That's not a "free speech issue", that's a *you* issue. You are free to say whatever you want. We're also free to call you when you state crap. Ignorance is fine, nobody comes into this world fully equipped to deal with it. Willful ignorance is not and shouldn't be. The world is hard enough to deal with without having to sit around and debunk willfully distributed crap all the time.

I know the conditions under which I would change my mind, and so, I'm comfortable with the theory *because* it is falsifiable and it is able to make predictions.