New Book - Unsettled Science

[csnavywx]

16 hours ago, bdgwx said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

The thing that kills me with this one (that keeps popping up like a zombie) is that none of them have ever come up with a source and then provided evidence for that source. You'd think this would be easy to check. Indeed, if it were coming from the ocean, for instance, you'd expect to see outgassing to the atmosphere and a net flux of CO2 from the surface (and thus an increase in pH over time through the water column). But, instead we see a decrease in pH.

[LibertyBell]

18 hours ago, bdgwx said:

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

 

 

However thats not to say that all fusion projects are deceptive, ITAR is doing well and the nations who participate in it (most of Europe) believe we'll be able to use fusion as an energy source by 2050

 

[drstuess]

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.

Very well said.

I guess I am also struggling with what OPs point is. His copy pastes seem to highlight the culture war and terminology aspects of the book and opinion pieces, but beyond that what is he saying?

Do you not think AGW is real? If so, why not? What other mechanism describe the increases? Does that theory hold up to review and scrutiny? Do you expect research to continue in that area? What criticism of that theory would make you chnage your mind?

There are many facets of climate change discussion which are ongoing and will continue to be ongoing as we live through it, more data results, and research continues. "Settled" is then a vary vague and imprecise term without more detail and context... For OPs benefit, climate science is very active with research into the impact of past, present, and future human behavior on climate change and various climate, biological, and social systems. The area is not "at rest" or "settled" with ongoing research and input subject to the scientific process and peer review of its merits.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Bhs1975]

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

 

 

Over the long haul as the sun heats up we will need to lower GHG levels to keep Earth habitable but eventually in a billion years or so even 0 GHG levels won't be enough. The Earth completely froze over in the past at least twice because it needed several thousand ppm CO2 to keep that from happening but now with a much hotter Sun that's not the case anymore.

[csnavywx]

2 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

Over the long haul as the sun heats up we will need to lower GHG levels to keep Earth habitable but eventually in a billion years or so even 0 GHG levels won't be enough. The Earth completely froze over in the past at least twice because it needed several thousand ppm CO2 to keep that from happening but now with a much hotter Sun that's not the case anymore.

Yeah, that's one of the more academically interesting things about what we've learned so far. During the LGM (and a few glacials before), CO2 approached the lower limit for C3 photosynthesis and despite the cooling, we never came close to freezing over completely. It's probably impossible for the system to do another Snowball episode like it did ~600 Mya as the sun is some 7% brighter now. Another 7% is probably game-over for multi-celled life as the stable climate space in which there's enough CO2 to sustain plant life will disappear. Even in the current era, just the brightening since the PETM and Cretaceous is enough to lower the necessary CO2 to tip into the "hothouse" state by quite a bit. I don't think it would take 1200+ ppm anymore. Maybe 600-800. (This is assuming that the NH and SH act symmetrically, which they almost assuredly do not -- the NH will be hotter sooner). 

[donsutherland1]

Book review at Yale Climate Connections:

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/05/a-critical-review-of-steven-koonins-unsettled/

[A-L-E-K]

"Why does Koonin think that unsettled questions in climate science are any kind of comfort when the consequences of doing nothing can be catastrophic?

because they won't be catastrophic for him and like so many people, he is incapable of empathy

 

[LibertyBell]

On 5/22/2021 at 10:32 AM, Bhs1975 said:

Over the long haul as the sun heats up we will need to lower GHG levels to keep Earth habitable but eventually in a billion years or so even 0 GHG levels won't be enough. The Earth completely froze over in the past at least twice because it needed several thousand ppm CO2 to keep that from happening but now with a much hotter Sun that's not the case anymore.

billion years?  we better be off this rock long before then.  a thousand years at the latest, I expect us to be colonizing habitable planets orbiting stars within 100 LY of us.

[LibertyBell]

On 5/22/2021 at 1:11 PM, csnavywx said:

Yeah, that's one of the more academically interesting things about what we've learned so far. During the LGM (and a few glacials before), CO2 approached the lower limit for C3 photosynthesis and despite the cooling, we never came close to freezing over completely. It's probably impossible for the system to do another Snowball episode like it did ~600 Mya as the sun is some 7% brighter now. Another 7% is probably game-over for multi-celled life as the stable climate space in which there's enough CO2 to sustain plant life will disappear. Even in the current era, just the brightening since the PETM and Cretaceous is enough to lower the necessary CO2 to tip into the "hothouse" state by quite a bit. I don't think it would take 1200+ ppm anymore. Maybe 600-800. (This is assuming that the NH and SH act symmetrically, which they almost assuredly do not -- the NH will be hotter sooner). 

all I can say is if we're not colonizing other habitable planets in other star systems we will be extinct long before 1 billion years comes to pass.

[Typhoon Tip]

Trade off.   Biology evolved the sentience of infinite awareness, thus supplying the sentience - ironically - the knowledge of their absolute finality. 

It doesn't matter if humans beat the race of exhausting resources, or - just run fast enough to outpace the apocalypse wave that is unavoidable triggered by all this advancement ( catch -22isms) here on Earth. Because whether here, or there, or beyond 'there' ..one cannot cheat death - in either outcome the finality of the civility still takes place.

I guess the idea is just to win more time.

[ChescoWx]

5 hours ago, wxtrix said:

what's to debate? you started a thread about a garbage book written by someone who has no idea about science. this is what real climate scientists have to say about him:

That ‘Obama Scientist’ Climate Skeptic You’ve Been Hearing About ...

His track record on getting climate science right is extremely poor

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/that-obama-scientist-climate-skeptic-youve-been-hearing-about/

 

 

Shhh shut down any debate (or be subject to cancellation) from anyone who has a different scientific view of the clear "settled science" that 97% of scientists believe....be very very quiet or be dismissed!!

[etudiant]

39 minutes ago, wxtrix said:

it's not a "different scientific view". it's flat out untruths which have no place in a scientific debate. lies are lies.

Seems a very firm viewpoint. Needs some very direct examples to be accepted.

As the late Oliver Cromwell once memorably said 'I beseech you, by the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken'. 

Humility goes a lot further than proof by assertion.

39 minutes ago, wxtrix said:

 

 

[TimB]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Shhh shut down any debate (or be subject to cancellation) from anyone who has a different scientific view of the clear "settled science" that 97% of scientists believe....be very very quiet or be dismissed!!

I mean, if my options on who to believe are 97% of people who have devoted their entire life’s work to studying the climate, or some theoretical physicist (not climate scientist) who happened to write a book and some guy on a weather forum promoting said book, the choice is pretty clear.

[raindancewx]

You can always tell that scientists in meteorology aren't used to dealing with the public. Saying 97% consensus means nothing if the consensus is wrong. You can just look at the number of times the consensus about COVID has changed about death rates, proper testing, forecasting models,  evaluating symptoms, public policy response, etc, to see why people don't give a damn about consensus. The case for warming is pretty strong, but if you put 100 scientists in a room I doubt they'd agree on the current temperature of the Earth or the best way to measure it. Presumably if I tracked the room temperature in my living room in six different spots for 100 years you'd have slight variation in the trends even within the same room, so the differences globally are unavoidable. So there is still infinite gradation in what is right or not in terms of the details, just as with anything. Most of the criticism of the science is really about conservatives recognizing (correctly) that even well meaning scientists have self-interested motivation, i.e. they'll look like buffoons if someone does ever disprove the current theories.

 

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, raindancewx said:

You can always tell that scientists in meteorology aren't used to dealing with the public. Saying 97% consensus means nothing if the consensus is wrong. You can just look at the number of times the consensus about COVID has changed about death rates, proper testing, forecasting models,  evaluating symptoms, public policy response, etc, to see why people don't give a damn about consensus. The case for warming is pretty strong, but if you put 100 scientists in a room I doubt they'd agree on the current temperature of the Earth or the best way to measure it. Presumably if I tracked the room temperature in my living room in six different spots for 100 years you'd have slight variation in the trends even within the same room, so the differences globally are unavoidable. So there is still infinite gradation in what is right or not in terms of the details, just as with anything. Most of the criticism of the science is really about conservatives recognizing (correctly) that even well meaning scientists have self-interested motivation, i.e. they'll look like buffoons if someone does ever disprove the current theories.

 

you dont think corporate "scientists" who work for the fossil fuel cartels have their own self interests?  I dont trust them as far as I can throw them, they're as bad as tobacco "doctors"

 

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, raindancewx said:

You can always tell that scientists in meteorology aren't used to dealing with the public. Saying 97% consensus means nothing if the consensus is wrong. You can just look at the number of times the consensus about COVID has changed about death rates, proper testing, forecasting models,  evaluating symptoms, public policy response, etc, to see why people don't give a damn about consensus. The case for warming is pretty strong, but if you put 100 scientists in a room I doubt they'd agree on the current temperature of the Earth or the best way to measure it. Presumably if I tracked the room temperature in my living room in six different spots for 100 years you'd have slight variation in the trends even within the same room, so the differences globally are unavoidable. So there is still infinite gradation in what is right or not in terms of the details, just as with anything. Most of the criticism of the science is really about conservatives recognizing (correctly) that even well meaning scientists have self-interested motivation, i.e. they'll look like buffoons if someone does ever disprove the current theories.

 

Conservatives stopped caring about science and the environment as soon as they started taking large bribes from corrupt corporations.

 

[LibertyBell]

7 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Shhh shut down any debate (or be subject to cancellation) from anyone who has a different scientific view of the clear "settled science" that 97% of scientists believe....be very very quiet or be dismissed!!

sounds like you're worried about being "canceled"

 

[ChescoWx]

13 hours ago, wxtrix said:

it's not a "different scientific view". it's flat out untruths which have no place in a scientific debate. lies are lies.

 

could it be dare I say an "alternate truth" ?

[FPizz]

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Conservatives stopped caring about science and the environment as soon as they started taking large bribes from corrupt corporations.

 

This goes both ways bud.  If you think otherwise you are living in fantasy land.  

[rclab]

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Conservatives stopped caring about science and the environment as soon as they started taking large bribes from corrupt corporations.

 

Be careful Liberty. The institution that lives by a wealth/power/control formula wears the cloak of the chameleon. Neither the ‘left’ or ‘right’ hand will be adverse to taking the wealth to balance/enhance their own equation. Labeling, a group, as above, will generally assist in keeping the source anonymous. As always ......

[LibertyBell]

18 hours ago, FPizz said:

This goes both ways bud.  If you think otherwise you are living in fantasy land.  

It's very easy to objectively analyze this.  FOIA allows us to uncover who takes how much money from the fossil fuel cartels in political donations (aka bribes).  Turns out that most of them are republicans, along with a few hybrids like Manchin who lives in coal country.

 

[The Iceman]

On 6/3/2021 at 1:15 AM, LibertyBell said:

Conservatives stopped caring about science and the environment as soon as they started taking large bribes from corrupt corporations.

 

And liberals claim they care about the environment yet continue to fly in private jets to speak at these "climate events" and live in mega mansions near the ocean. Weird. You'd think if they were really that concerned about a "climate emergency", they'd practice what they preach. 

[forkyfork]

a rich person flying on a private jet changes the absorption spectrum of co2? lol

[etudiant]

41 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

a rich person flying on a private jet changes the absorption spectrum of co2? lol

No, s/he merely adds a lifetime supply of CO2 emissions on every flight.

Maybe Zoom conferencing should be mandatory instead?

[forkyfork]

55 minutes ago, etudiant said:

No, s/he merely adds a lifetime supply of CO2 emissions on every flight.

Maybe Zoom conferencing should be mandatory instead?

so a celebrity flying on a private jet doesn't change the science of climate change. thanks for answering!

[SnoSki14]

3 hours ago, The Iceman said:

And liberals claim they care about the environment yet continue to fly in private jets to speak at these "climate events" and live in mega mansions near the ocean. Weird. You'd think if they were really that concerned about a "climate emergency", they'd practice what they preach. 

You'd need systemic nationwide changes to curb emissions. 

A few people flying in a jet ain't doing diddly squat. Also how do you want people to get around...bike a few thousand miles.

[etudiant]

4 hours ago, SnoSki14 said:

You'd need systemic nationwide changes to curb emissions. 

A few people flying in a jet ain't doing diddly squat. Also how do you want people to get around...bike a few thousand miles.

They do set a really bad example though.  It is classic 'do as I say, not as I do'. That does not sit well with most people.

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, etudiant said:

They do set a really bad example though.  It is classic 'do as I say, not as I do'. That does not sit well with most people.

It isn't as simple as that though, airline companies are now using carbon offsets and also developing fuels that release much less CO2.  I look forward to the day when we will all be in electric or solar powered planes

 

[donsutherland1]

23 hours ago, etudiant said:

They do set a really bad example though.  It is classic 'do as I say, not as I do'. That does not sit well with most people.

I don’t agree. The major greenhouse gas polluters (https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240) want to pass the blame for their scope 3 emissions (the majority of their emissions). This is their effort to deflect attention from their responsibility so as to be able to continue to profit from products that impose huge and growing externalities on the public whom they try to blame.

[etudiant]

16 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

I don’t agree. The major greenhouse gas polluters (https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240) want to pass the blame for their scope 3 emissions (the majority of their emissions). This is their effort to deflect attention from their responsibility so as to be able to continue to profit from products that impose huge and growing externalities on the public whom they try to blame.

That is not how I see it. The suppliers of fossil fuels can be rightfully burdened with extra costs to offset the damage they are inflicting on the environment.

However, for individuals who excoriate the use of fossil fuels and who highlight the potential adverse consequences should set an example of how to behave, rather than flaunting their complete disrespect for the message they preach. Private flights to climate conferences and purchases of lavish beachfront estates are simply inconsistent with that message.

Maybe the community needs new spokespeople.