[taxisquad3]

China, North Korea, Russia, India, Africa, South American and Central American countries do not care. The first 3 will never care. The other countries and continents are too poor to care. The Trillians that are being planned by the US to reduce our carbon footprint would do more good being sent to the poor countries in the world so their populous can become wealthier and thus begin to think about/care about global warming

[Gilithin]

 taxisquad3, on 2023-August-24, 17:24, said:

What % of that almost 1 degree in the past 50 years was due to human's

From the NASA website, there had in 2010 been roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius of warming originating from human influences since 1889, while natural influences had been plus or minus 0.2 degrees averaging out to around 0 degrees of warming. Obviously there has been a relatively sharp increase in global temperatures since that was written with almost all of it being anthropogenic. An important Australian paper in this field ascribes a warming ratio of 170:1 for human to natural influences. One of climate change experts involved in the paper is quoted as saying "We are not saying the astronomical forces of our solar system or geological processes have disappeared, but in terms of their impact in such a short period of time they are now negligible compared with our own influence." There are a small number of scientists working in this area who ascribe a higher value to natural variations in ocean currents (and hence a slightly lower value to the sensitivity factor) but you will not find (m)any reputable scientists still saying that AGW is not responsible for the vast majority of recent climate change.

[johnu]

 taxisquad3, on 2023-August-24, 17:33, said:

China, North Korea, Russia, India, Africa, South American and Central American countries do not care. The first 3 will never care. The other countries and continents are too poor to care.

Speaking of who cares the least, that would be the QOP and the US oil/gas/coal industry that funds them so they can continue to oppose green energy bills that would hurt industry profits, and also religiously deny global warming.

And strikingly, all the named countries have signed the Kyoto protocol, including Russia. China is the leading green energy country in the world, but obviously can do a lot more, Russia is probably dragging their feet as the oil and gas industry income is the only thing preventing a complete economic collapse during crippling western sanctions, and North Korea is a small country with an even tinier failing economy. India has a goal of 50% green energy by 2030.

[garfinkle]

Is there room here for opposing views? https://judithcurry.com/

[pilowsky]

I was out getting a coffee this morning when someone approached me and explained that some chap created the world 6,004 years ago.
He had a friend with him, so there was a consensus between them on this point.

Nothing wrong with "opposing views" so long as they aren't a danger to themselves or others.

[Gilithin]

 garfinkle, on 2023-August-25, 17:38, said:

Is there room here for opposing views? https://judithcurry.com/

Judith Curry is one of the serious scientists who believe that ocean currents play a larger role than in the majority of models. I used to follow her research fairly closely and it is certainly a site I can recommend for someone looking for a comprehensive review of all reasonable viewpoints and avenues of research. For the majority who are just looking for an overall summary of the general consensus though, it is more likely to be confusing than helpful.

[Winstonm]

 Gilithin, on 2023-August-25, 22:15, said:

Judith Curry is one of the serious scientists who believe that ocean currents play a larger role than in the majority of models. I used to follow her research fairly closely and it is certainly a site I can recommend for someone looking for a comprehensive review of all reasonable viewpoints and avenues of research. For the majority who are just looking for an overall summary of the general consensus though, it is more likely to be confusing than helpful.

What causes the changes in the ocean currents though?

[Gilithin]

 Winstonm, on 2023-August-26, 10:10, said:

What causes the changes in the ocean currents though?

Her work is built around long term ocean cycles that work over relatively long time periods. The fact that the negative phase of one of the shorter ones (~40-60 years iirc but it has been a while since I looked in so feel free to correct me) coincided with the so-called "hiatus" is particularly noteworthy in this regard. In my view she is doing useful and important work. It is unfortunate that some have in the past labelled her a climate change denier just, or at least primarily, because her estimates for the sensitivity factor (the average change in temperature over time) are lower than those of most models. My personal thoughts when I was following it more closely were that the model she was using to calculate her sensitivity factors was too simple but her work should be taken up and addressed by the wider scientific community without that being seen as a black mark on their climate change credentials. Unfortunately I do not know how the science in her specific field has developed in the last few years so it is difficult for me to say much more on the topic.

[kenberg]

 Gilithin, on 2023-August-26, 18:59, said:

Her work is built around long term ocean cycles that work over relatively long time periods. The fact that the negative phase of one of the shorter ones (~40-60 years iirc but it has been a while since I looked in so feel free to correct me) coincided with the so-called "hiatus" is particularly noteworthy in this regard. In my view she is doing useful and important work. It is unfortunate that some have in the past labelled her a climate change denier just, or at least primarily, because her estimates for the sensitivity factor (the average change in temperature over time) are lower than those of most models. My personal thoughts when I was following it more closely were that the model she was using to calculate her sensitivity factors was too simple but her work should be taken up and addressed by the wider scientific community without that being seen as a black mark on their climate change credentials. Unfortunately I do not know how the science in her specific field has developed in the last few years so it is difficult for me to say much more on the topic.

I have not made a serious study of climate. I believe I am like the vast majority. Still, we have to do our best to have an opinion, to try to decide whom to trust, to decide what, if anything, can be done.I am skeptical of anyone who says "Well, that's just the earth being what it is, nothing can be done". Until these posts, I had never heard of Judith Curry so I do not know if that is her conclusion. For me, it seems likely that throwing a lot of stuff into the air, or a lot of stuff into the oceans, or a lot of stuff into Lake Erie, will have an effect. Maybe other things are also causing change, I don't doubt that, butif some cannot be addressed n any way and others can, we might try to address those factors that can be dealt with.

But it will be difficult. There are, I guess, 8 billion of us. I'm old and comfortable, but still, I do not take the time to do as much as I could to help with the problem. Many are struggling to survive and it's hard to fault them for not paying more attention to the long-term needs of the earth we live on.

Skepticism is fine, a very useful approach, but skepticism about skepticism is also good.

So just for a quickie, is it her opinion that what is going on is due to natural changes in the earth and so nothing can be done? It does seem to be the opinion of some, and if they are right that would be too bad. I am more than willing to admit that my own knowledge is very superficial. I have many fellow superficialites

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2023-August-27, 08:03, said:

I have not made a serious study of climate. I believe I am like the vast majority. Still, we have to do our best to have an opinion, to try to decide whom to trust, to decide what, if anything, can be done.I am skeptical of anyone who says "Well, that's just the earth being what it is, nothing can be done". Until these posts, I had never heard of Judith Curry so I do not know if that is her conclusion. For me, it seems likely that throwing a lot of stuff into the air, or a lot of stuff into the oceans, or a lot of stuff into Lake Erie, will have an effect. Maybe other things are also causing change, I don't doubt that, butif some cannot be addressed n any way and others can, we might try to address those factors that can be dealt with.

But it will be difficult. There are, I guess, 8 billion of us. I'm old and comfortable, but still, I do not take the time to do as much as I could to help with the problem. Many are struggling to survive and it's hard to fault them for not paying more attention to the long-term needs of the earth we live on.

Skepticism is fine, a very useful approach, but skepticism about skepticism is also good.

So just for a quickie, is it her opinion that what is going on is due to natural changes in the earth and so nothing can be done? It does seem to be the opinion of some, and if they are right that would be too bad. I am more than willing to admit that my own knowledge is very superficial. I have many fellow superficialites

Along the same lines, there is nothing about either concept, natural and man-caused, that excludes the other. But to arbitrarily say natural is the predominant reason for the variations from the normals since the Industrial Revolution is to discount the vast majority of climate studiers worldwide who say the opposite and have no financial or ideological bias to make those claims.

[Gilithin]

 kenberg, on 2023-August-27, 08:03, said:

So just for a quickie, is it her opinion that what is going on is due to natural changes in the earth and so nothing can be done?

Not when I was last there. In a way it can all sort of be boiled down to aerosols. The way that the sensitivity factor (long-term warming) is calculated is using models built on historical data. Unfortunately the record for the last 140ish years, the period for which we have decent, non-proxy data, is not linear and it turns out that one of the major challenges is in modelling the global cooling that occurred around the 1950s. While a small amount of that can be scrubbed off through known solar activity, standard models ascribe the main part of it to the increasing use of aerosols at that time. By tweaking various other coefficients in the system, this basically gives a range of values to assign to aerosols. However, since aerosols are a temporary forcing, the value placed here has a direct impact on the sensitivity factor - the higher the forcing for aerosols, the higher the final sensitivity factor will be. Indeed, one of the major (probably fair) criticisms that have been levelled at the IPCC is that the majority of models they use have aerosol coefficients towards the upper bound with only a small number using less aggressive numbers.

Now back to JC. Her model used a very high factor for certain ocean cycles. At least one of these is factored into the standard models, since it is well known that a Pacific Oscillation (I forget the full name) has a direct influence on the probability of an El Nino event. By assigning a high factor here, she requires a much lower influence for aerosols, meaning that the sensitivity factor is reduced. In fact she simplified the modelling process much more than this, which to me was detrimental to her research efforts. But this is the essentially underlying mechanism that led her to her conclusions, at least as I remember it.

Finally, a quick mention of the elephant in he room. The ocean cycle providing the main driver for this model was (roughly) negative in the late 40s, positive in the late 70s and negative again in the late 00s. So even if this model is correct, it would mean a major warming spike in the late 30s on top of the current trends. Given the warnings of the so-called "warming alarmists", it might be time to take her idea at least semi-seriously and have plans in place just in case such a spike does happen. It would not be great if we accidentally hit one of the tipping points early just because we ignored someone who was not regarded as alarmist enough for values in 100 years' time!

[johnu]

It's been a year since the last post, so hopefully the discussion has cooled down, because certainly the climate hasn't!

Scientists make concerning new discovery about the Earth's rising temperatures: 'Truly staggering'

Quote

2023 was the hottest year ever recorded — but 2024 is on track to beat it.

What's happening?
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), July 2024 was the hottest July on record.

July isn't the only month breaking records. Every month in the past 14 months has beaten its previous monthly temperature record for average global surface temperature, according to the NOAA.

Contrary to popular belief, the heating up of US presidential campaign rhetoric is not believed to be a cause in the spike in actual climate temperatures.

[thepossum]

Quote

It's been a year since the last post, so hopefully the discussion has cooled down, because certainly the climate hasn't!

Maybe people have given up

I still think the world has a fundamental problem with simple physics

Wasting too much energy is wasting too much energy

Maybe they can capture all the emissions compress them and launch them into space

Seriously there has been no progress in my lifetime