And, that’s the problem too much deliberate deception going on.
If you want to learn more, the number one starting place is SkepticalScience,
they have a collection of articles covering every aspect of climate science, based on the latest research. They explain things on various levels and they provide links to all their sources, so, you dear reader (as they say) can look at it yourself.
Many of those published papers are more accessible than you’d think, plus if you read those, they do sometimes take you in the weeds and blow you away with the complexity and detail involved.
I’ve found stuff totally over my head is still quite informative, on a different human - appreciation level. Can’t appreciate how smart them climate scientists are until reading their technical papers reveals how astoundingly dumb I am compared to the scope of their understanding. (at least about the details).
This is the link to them I like to share the most, because it’s a complete list of all other bogus arguments you can imagine, with solid education, explanations, and sources for further info.
Tru dat. Venus isn’t a good analogy for our Earth’s climate system for a bunch other geophysical factors. An example of stuff I’m aware of, but couldn’t explain a bit of it, without spending a bunch of time doing refresher homework. Good catch!
How about guaranteed existential threat to our global society, with the verdict on humanity remain out, although, it should be pretty clear that any human that survive into the last half of this century and next, will have to do some might radical adaptation.
We are ingenious if nothing else, who know.
Sure especially for non-experts, but Thermodynamics is fundamentally pretty straight forward.
It’s like the difference of being able to measure how much heat increasing atmospheric insulation (read CO2) is building up within Earth’s climate/hydrological cycle - that is how much heat has been added to the entire global system.
But devilishly difficult to track where and how all that heat is being distributed within Ocean and melting cryosphere, and land masses and atmosphere.
So this is where the Right Wingnuts scream that we can ignore all that, unless we have perfected 100% understanding - it’s insane logic.
Because one article doesn’t change science. Is this about messaging, or solutions? A little of both maybe. Please provide your perspective instead of just a link and a question. Is your question rhetorical? Is it implying something about the public, or climate scientists?
You don’t even share any key sentences, such as perhaps this:
"… we did not consider how much of that artificial sink would be needed to sustain our economic system.
Any why didn’t we?
Why were so many people happy to abandon critical thinking about the obvious?
That is, that it’s our own demand for unrestrained human consumption and wanton biosphere destruction that is driving our road to a living hell here on Earth.
What do you think the biggest hurdle is, to starting to behave rationally when it comes to humanity’s impact on this planet?
Love, I would be interested in your suggestions, simply posting how horrendous our current situation is, ain’t telling us anything we don 't know.
As for your article, for me it was a boring rehash of history, kept waiting for something fresh or insightful, finishing with:
The time has come to voice our fears and be honest with wider society. Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now. That is the very simple acid test that must be applied to all climate policies. The time for wishful thinking is over.
The tragedy is that we’ve run out of runway without ever getting serious about global warming.
But there is another invisible line, the one that separates maintaining academic integrity and self-censorship. As scientists, we are taught to be sceptical, to subject hypotheses to rigorous tests and interrogation. But when it comes to perhaps the greatest challenge humanity faces, we often show a dangerous lack of critical analysis.
But what about the masses of people and their expectations?
What about the wanton rejection of critical thinking and honestly facing the consequences of our actions?
What would you like to do?
What do you think the next phase of humanity will look like? I mean once millions start dying, and systems we depend on, governmental, as well a good’ol natural systems we’ve taken for granted since, heck for eva.
You cant talk of solutions without acknowledging the problem.
Do you acknowledge that governments around the world with a net zero climate change policy will ensure our kids future is condemned to a greater than 1.5 degree global average temperature increase?
"What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "
Do you appreciate that is already in the pipeline??? With much more coming in after that arrives.
What are you talking about?
How about simple human nature?
In the 1960s and 1970s humanity had it’s wake up call, we were producing too many humans, that wanted too much stuff, without every thinking about the consequences. Our choice was as simple as it was stark. Slow down, make less babies, develop less of this planet, slow the fuk down! Or we would outpace our planet’s ability to support our massive consumption based on destruction.
Also our industry produced huge quantities of CO2 that would increase atmospheric insulation, simple unavoidable physics. We humans have a temperature comfort zone, our industries have a temperature comfort zone, our biosphere has a temperature comfort zone. We were creating an untenable situation, as they say.
What are you going to do about that?
The climate science denial and falsification industry is going stronger than ever, because that’s what westernized people want, more of everything, and a vacation around world while we’re at it.
Can you recognize that fundamental baseline reality. American are more concerned about the price of a gallon of gas, then they are about the problems of other people and our biosphere.
Sure the oligarch are spending millions to brainwash us and guarantee that more stuff is all most everyone is concerned about. But, look at election polling, and the truism, It’s the Economy Stupid, remains a true today as it ever was.
What’s that about that part of the problem?
Remove the log from your own eye, before going for the splinter in my eye, and all that, eh.
I started the conversation with you on governments leading its people to the climate abyss but you dont stop, listen and consider the points made to you before you respond. Instead you choose to lecture to inflate your obviously massive ego
NET ZERO is a con, a weasel phrase, a political not environmental expediency, a lie to the citizens so as not to upset their boat too much, - it’s just a lie, it always has been. The scientists must know this, they are used to not speaking out, and if they do, their bosses will deal to the them and the media will ignore them. Many have spoken including everyone here’s favourite, George Monbiot., but the power of politics and business and spin is enormous and highly effective. But it is true that the more general criticism of “net zero” has only become wider in the last two to four years, when a simple examination of the logic of the idea should have revealed its nonsensicality from the start. The problem was, I think that the “net zero” originally started as corporate greenwash, and it was then adopted by sovereign jurisdictions in the IPCC rather later, it was too good a diversion to not use.
The ULEZ in London is a prime example of political expediency outweighing more important social concerns - it’s now almost a shibboleth of the political class that the “folk” will vote for anyone who tells them they can continue to drive their polluting vehicles and to hell with anyone else. Tragically, they may even be right, but where’s the political will in power or opposition to fight for this? This article is also three years old Fossil Fuels’ ‘Net-Zero’ Carbon Emissions Scam Is Something Humanity Doesn’t Have Time For - MAHB
Net Zero and its partner in environmental crime the ETS are cons in this hyper capitalist world, conjuring fortunes out of literal thin air. What’s not to like about the ETS for the rich and greedy and the sociopathic, you don’t even have to think much or get your hands dirty. Let a computer churn out some dubious CO2 accounting model and Bob’s your Burning Uncle. The calculations and assumptions behind them are of advanced mathematical complexity, and impossible for any lay person, and that includes politicians, to fully understand. That of course is deliberate. The same principle is in widespread use in the pricing of electricity and so-called competition in privatised electricity networks around the world.
Be as it may, its plain as day to me that I can no longer converse with you on anything so i bid you goodbye and hope you have the day you deserve.
"What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "
Thank you Lausten, hopefully that might sink into Love brain.
But also, so long as Love wants to pin it all on the über rich masters of the universe, Love’s being naive and spinning his wheels. Not to mention engaged in self-delusion. The problem goes way beyond the type of scapegoating he’s embraced, but that reveals he actually doesn’t possess any real knowledge regarding the topic he/she’s shooting their mouth off on.
Leaving the conversation in fit of indignation and feigned moral superiority is a typical baiting prima donna’s closing act.
“What happens when the trace greenhouse gases are removed? Because of the non-linear impacts of CO2 on absorption, the impact of removing the CO2 is approximately seven times as large as doubling it.”
Instead these sites insist that the gain is going to come form the side lobes; in other words adjacent to the absorption spectrum. I’m afraid that argument may not hold up but that is not the crux of my argument here. Attempts to grapple with an understanding of the greenhouse effect and seek out direct sources is more my cup of tea. The ideas that we as individuals here are not authorities is obvious. That we then seek out the authorities and relay their results is good. That we relay the digests of the digesters though… at some point this game goes foul. This is akin to the modern ‘fact check’ sites which have been proven to be compromised. You don’t get to name yourself as a fact checker. You do get to prove, or at least support, your beliefs with the best information that you can find. This then leads us to the position of exposing obfuscation, and here is where we as individuals can have our turn. We can practice media accountability. There are inconvenient truths, and typically the fullest truth is littered with them. The tensions; nonlinearities; it’s like predicting the weather… what three weeks out? I have to tell you about my local experience here: we are having an extremely cool summer. August especially. This in central New Hampshire in the U.$. I understand it is a microcosm effect, but it does steep my skepticism.
I agree here in pronciple, but I don’t see this in action from you Tim. Jimmy Dore for example.
And there is the type of reasoning that doesn’t work. If we wait until every state in the union is on fire, it will be too late. Climate scientists address the local weather. Enjoy that cool breeze while it’s here.
Excuse me for not sharing that particular article, Gavin Schmidt, not too many understand the subject better than he does. I tip my hat to you for sharing it.
Of course, among others things, one needs to account for the cost for removing that CO2. Then to continue your quote:
"… If such an event were possible, it would lead to dramatic cooling, both directly and indirectly, as the water vapor and clouds would react. In model experiments where all the trace greenhouse gases are removed the planet cools to a near-Snowball Earth, some 35°C cooler than today, as water vapor levels decrease to 10% of current values, and planetary reflectivity increases (because of snow and clouds) to further cool the planet.
Despite being a trace gas, there is nothing trivial about the importance of CO2 for today, nor its role in shaping climate change in the future.
Key takeaways
The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 300 parts per million (ppM) in 1950 to more than 400 ppM today.
Even if huge amounts of atmospheric CO2 are already captured in nature, it is not enough to diminish these to the levels required to fight against global warming.
The direct air capture of CO2 (DAC) is presumably an efficient solution to face the problem of diffuse emissions.
However, the weak concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere – 400 ppM in the air – is a major challenge. With existing technologies, we would need to treat 1.25 million cubic meters of air to capture one ton of CO2.
Technological solutions are under development to overcome this challenge.
A rendering of Carbon Engineering’s large-scale carbon dioxide removal plant, which will use direct air capture. Photo: Carbon Engineering Ltd.
I look at plans like that and want to see the balance sheet, how much extra CO2 is released building and maintaining that monster.
Also the problems with every technological fix, has been that as soon as they get serious, the back stabbers, and/or profiteers, come out to trip it up.
With most of the people and power still deluded as to the seriousness of what we are doing, we aren’t going to get any further than we have during the past half century of denial and doddering.
and a I review those links they do come up weak. It is extremely difficult ground to volley on. Perhaps this field is much as economists describe economic theory. To confront the Royal Society as putting out propaganda: I’m afraid so. Right there in their headline, they are stuffing their own foot into their own mouth: “As the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase, the addition of extra CO2 becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise.”
royalsocietyDotorg/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/
I don’t mean to spoil this link, but the editor warns me that it is already shared, and I do mean to reference it in kind. The simplest ctriticism is that they don’t say how much it will rise.
They have basically engaged in double speak here. They are admitting quite directly that the falsification on https://youtu.be/TVBDMeuHq_U is debunking the debunker bent over in a bunker’s bunk, which is terribly uncomfortable.
as I now get the drift of the possibility of double speak and mastery of propaganda; the very susceptibility of the human mind to gullibility… I pledge not to take a nihilistic position on this. In effect every Nazi is a nihilist in that as they proclaim their exclusive right and interpretation they have done in themselves by the symmetry of another’s, and so the nihilist Nazi proves the global identity correct. As to who would choose to misuse that identity… egality is the metric, and it is for the public to decide.
I am sorry to wander so far astray on the science thread, yet misinformation within science is now afoot. I guess it always was. The consequences of this particular crux of OCO saturation effect are enough to secure at least one hinge to.
The obvious extension of thought from Schmidt is that a doubling of OCO will have one seventh the effect, isn’t it? Now, these are my words, not his, and I would like to be refuted on this. I don’t feel secure in saying I believe this, but this is the first time that this factor has even been admitted in this discussion. There lays one problem. The diversion over to carbon capture I don’t care to engage with. This prior point clearly exposes the lack of need, if the analysis holds up.
Running interference with Venus isn’t going to cut it this time.
Why would that be a deal breaker?
How much it rises depends on what we do!
How much it rises also depends on where, and how, you chose to measure.
(Global increase)
For instance, are we going to calculate the entire system based on satellite measurements of absorption and transmission of heat at the top the entire global system, that is upper atmosphere.
(global circulation)
But then once warning get’s into our global heat and moisture distribution engine, it moves through many, many different pathways and complexities and averaging it out accurately simply isn’t possible. So you are setting up impossible expectation.
In this video, Dr. Celia Martin Puertas highlights the role of the atmosphere and the ocean in the Earth’s climate system. This is composed of five main elements, i.e. the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the biosphere, the lithosphere and the cryosphere, which are responsible for absorbing and reflecting the solar energy. In addition, the atmosphere and the ocean distribute the heat received from the Sun from the equator to the polar regions, making our planet a nice place to live and rich in biodiversity. You will learn about the difference between weather and climate, the origin of the different climatic regions and biomes, why we have a lot of rain in the UK and how the ocean currents flow around the globe. This lecture corresponds to the following components of the A-Level syllabus: AQA – 3.1.1 Water and carbon cycles OCR – Topic 1.2 Earth’s Life Support Systems Pearson-Edexcel – Topic 5 The Water Cycle and Water Insecurity.
or more formally:
Jan 1, 2018 - Dave Cocchiarella - 56:00 min.
This Lecture is meant for students of OCE 1001 An Introduction to Oceanography at Valencia College and Seminole State College. The content is taken for the textbook Essentials of Oceanography, 8th Edition, from Cengage Learning, 2018 and written by Tom Garrison and Robert Ellis.
I believe we have to deal with the information we have at hand.
You can ignore that; pretend this information doesn’t exist; claim this information exists but can’t be trusted, you can insist that it’s insignificant. But that doesn’t conform to rationally processing the information we have at hand:
This info-bit ought to help us appreciate just how bad it is.
It’s more complicated than you assume, and you don’t understand the details enough to make such statements.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
David Archer is the author of Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, published by John Wiley and Sons and a book for popular audiences called The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 years of the Earth’s Climate, published by Princeton University Press and winner of the 2009 Walter P. Kistler Award, The Foundation for the Future.
Since 1993, Archer has been a professor in the department of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago and has worked on a wide range of topics pertaining to the global carbon cycle and its relation to the global climate, with a special focus on ocean sedimentary processes such as CaCO3 dissolution and methane hydrate formation and their impact on the evolution of atmospheric CO2.
He currently teaches classes on global warming, environmental chemistry and global geochemical cycles.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Online Models v
Preface vii
1 Humankind and Climate 1
Part I The Greenhouse Effect 7
2 Blackbody Radiation 9
3 The Layer Model 19
4 Greenhouse Gases 29
5 What Holds the Atmosphere Up? 43
6 Weather and Climate 57
7 Feedbacks 73
Part II The Carbon Cycle 87
8 Carbon on Earth 89
9 Fossil Fuels and Energy 103
10 The Perturbed Carbon Cycle 119
Part III The Forecast 133
11 The Smoking Gun 135
12 Potential Climate Impacts 153
13 Decisions, Decisions 173
Glossary 191
Index 197
So what are you going to confront them with? That they can’t be 100% accurate?
In all of this you seem unconcerned with the stakes we are gambling with, dismissing real experts and their nuanced honest sharing of information as “propaganda” reveals yourself to be a bit of a propaganda tool yourself. Do you recognize that?
Melodramatic dismissal of expert understanding based on misreading sentences (by accident or deliberately) is pretty foolish. Sometimes you write as though you understand that, then you turn around a pull off a disingenuous stunt.
=================
Oh and Tim, I just realized something else looking back at your above comment. Can you explain why does your writing have this undercurrent that actual climate experts aren’t to be trusted?
It’s actually even better news than this: 1 percent; why, that’s a Bernie Sander’s thing!
This is a good one percent though:
“The researchers find that the current levels of atmospheric CO2 and water vapor are close to saturation. Saturation is a technical term meaning that the greenhouse effect has already had its maximum impact and further increases in concentration will cause little additional warming. For CO2, doubling its concentration from its 2015 level of 400 ppm (parts per million) to 800 ppm will increase its radiative forcing by just 1%. This increase in forcing will decrease the cooling radiation emitted to space by about 3 watts per square meter, out of a total of about 300 watts per square meter currently radiated to space.”
If true, then this article would establish you as a master propagandist for not sharing this information earlier. The coincidence with other interactions here seems entirely consistent. This really is a make-or-break issue. Of course, the subject is pretty much endless, and even conceding this point the water cycle is relevant that much more, and tipping point arguments, too. But that this one could be such a thorn in your side that has been hidden from view I find interesting, especially given the local climate here on this site. FAFA, sir.
