The tragedy of climate change science? The broken science-society contract? Seriously?!?

After another fascinating (and rewarding) graveyard shift :wink: I found a timely link to a new article at …and Then There’s Physics another discussion forum that I like to check in with, for peeks into a sliver of climate science academia.

It starts like this,

Since my last post was about how scientists failed the pandemic test, I thought I might comment on another paper highlighting the tragedy of climate change science.

The basic premise of the article is that society has failed to take effective action on climate change and that, consequently,
the science-society contract is broken and that the time has come for scientists to agree to a moratorium on climate change research as a means to first expose, then renegotiate, the broken science-society contract.

I have sympathy with the frustration, but I think the basic argument is simply wrong. I don’t think the general description of the social contract is quite right. As Andrew Dessler pointed out, the social contract is simply that [t]hey pay us to do research and we provide them with the results. There is no obligation that policy makers take the results and make decisions that the researchers agree with. …

I didn’t read that much further because the self flagellation became too irritating.
Still, after a good long hot shower to wash off the precious bodily fluids I’d been getting sprinkled with parts of the night and morning, the reading turned into an inspiration to write a commentary, and I want to share, see if anyone else has thoughts to share.

The tragedy of climate change science

Bruce C. Glavovic, Timothy F. Smith, Iain White

The science-society contract is broken. The climate is changing. Science demonstrates why this is occurring, that it is getting worse, the implications for human well-being and social-ecological systems, and substantiates action.
Governments agree that the science is settled.
The tragedy of climate change science is that at the same time as compelling evidence is gathered, fresh warnings issued, and novel methodologies developed, indicators of adverse global change rise year upon year.
… . We explore three options for the climate change science community. We find that two options are untenable and one is unpalatable. Given the urgency and criticality of climate change, we argue the time has come for scientists to agree to a moratorium on climate change research as a means to first expose, then renegotiate, the broken science-society contract. …

Under the heading of: STOP BLAMING SCIENCE FOR OUR OWN FAILURES!

It’s astounding. You folks keep missing the point! Humanity failed itself!

Mr. Science explained the basics of climate scientific in the 1950’s and nothing, nothing has changed about the fundamental reality and the direction that reality points to! Nor the consequences of, (whichever choice we made). The science has become more informed ever since. Nothing changed about the outline, we’ve simply been increasing the resolution on the folds within folds of harmonic complexity that is our global heat engine. In so far as the science goes, scientists did what they were supposed to do.

What all too few seem capable of facing, is that this has been a collective mass societal willful denial of fundamental science, because the consequences of doing the right thing for future generations appalled us. Less growth, less greed? “You gotta be kidding!”

The fact of Anthropogenic Global Warming made clear to every thinking person who looked at it, that humanity had one simple choice. (It was the lesson stars have taught us, the bigger it is, the more it consumes, the faster it burns up, and dies.) Increasing Earth’s temperature will force cascading consequences that will profoundly supercharge weather, and degrade our biosphere, plus damage and destroy our infrastructure. No maybe about it.

If we cared about the wellbeing of future generations - the choice was clear.

We needed to Power Down, less greed, less kids, less consumption, less military, less commerce, less raping our Home Planet’s biosphere, instead more awareness towards Earth, Evolution and Deep Time, which would have enabled a sense of duty towards the welfare of this miracle planet - who’s biosphere and global heat and moisture distribution engine created us and sustains us.

Instead we allowed: “I hate taxes so I’m going to normalize blatant lies and slander and misrepresentation along with demonstrable fraud against science,” to win the day, and year, and decades. Now, here we are.

No one stood up to take down that sort of self-delusional, self-destructive thinking and behavior. Instead it became normalized to the point that a hollow corporate cypher like Trump is made leader of our nation.

All the while the brainiacs from every branch of our society and media simply keep on talking past each other.

CC, let me give you my viewpoints. Hope this helps.

Keeping tabs on Climate Change

Years or decades ago now being a so-called climate denier was not to agree that all the science was done, and we needed to move into regulations of climate control. The voice of people saying the cycles of the sun and the number of clouds were of importance and needed to be investigated were labeled “denier”. The woke said clouds and sun cycles zeroed out and they had such little affect that they were not even needed in the climate programs.

Today, the scientists are busy working on the sun’s cycles and the effects of clouds.

Where the climate deniers are today? --------

Global Warming and Radiative Energy Flux

NASA-operated satellite-based CERES project has been producing data for 20 years now on the difference between solar irradiation of long- and short-wave radiation. And its affect to changes in the energy content of the climate system. If it is positive, the Earth is heating up ; if it is negative, it means cooling.

This is at odds with the IPCC that warming caused by the increase in long-wave back radiation was due solely to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect and justifies this with model calculations.

In the last 20 years, warming of the Earth is mainly due to the higher permeability of clouds for short-wave solar radiation.

However, one thing can already be stated: the warming of the last 20 years has been caused more by change in the clouds than by the classical greenhouse effect. ’ Fritz Vahrenholt and Rolf Dubal

Where the government scientists are today? ---------

Earth’s energy imbalance doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.

A positive energy imbalance means the Earth system is gaining energy, causing the planet to heat up .

Scientists at NASA and NOAA compared data from two independent measurements. NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) suite of satellite sensors measure how much energy enters and leaves Earth’s system.

The study finds that the doubling of the imbalance is partially the result an increase in greenhouse gases due to human activity, also known as anthropogenic forcing, along with increases in water vapor are trapping more outgoing longwave radiation, further contributing to Earth’s energy imbalance. Additionally, the related decrease in clouds and sea ice lead to more absorption of solar energy.

Note, it seems like the deniers and the government scientists are on the same page. They just disagree on what percentage of solar vs. Co2 is causing the earths’ heat imbalance. The trend is about 40% solar and 60% Co2. But the CERES data is showing 65% solar and 35% Co2. And in the last two decades some to most of the heat is from solar, not Co2.

Point being. Who is really following this data? Who cares if the deniers and government scientists are on the same page for the source? The American Bar Association is who. The legal approach to Climate Change needs verifiable data for court. What is going on politically doesn’t require solid data and would never hold up in court. Today we are moving closer to measuring the earth’s warming with solid data.

Problem is that we can do nothing about solar radiation.
We can do something about CO2. But using CO2 products to drive industry is profitable. And therin lies the problem.

It is not the scientists nor the consumers who are to blame here. It is the Capitalists that run this show and don’t give a damn what the scientists and the ordinary public have to say about global warming. They have climate control in their homes!

Baloney, Mike Yohe, you are exhibit one for a denier!
That is someone who has no problem misrepresenting what scientists have actually learned and shared with the public. You love maliciously slandering good competent scientist with utter misrepresentations, read lies.

For example, your attacks on the competence and character of Dr. Michael Mann ignores the actual substance and claims of his scientific papers.

Liars such as you are the deniers. Now your twisting of the cloud science is another example.

No, it probably isn’t mostly due to changes in clouds!

Posted on November 27, 2021 by …and Then There’s Physics

ATTP: I haven’t done a paper debunk for a while, but a reader got in touch to ask about a recent paper by Hans Rolf-Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt, so I thought I would have a quick look. The paper is Radiative … Continue reading →

"… As this paper then illustrates, when energy accumulates in the climate system due to an enhancement in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, this accumulation is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation, rather than simply being due to an imbalance in the long-wavelength fluxes. However, this doesn’t somehow contradict that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will cause the system to warm, or suggest that changes in clouds are causing most of the warming.

So, although I haven’t work through the Dübal and Vahrenholt paper in detail, the basic result they present seems broadly consistent with what is expected. That they find that most of the warming over the 2001-2020 period was due to a reduction in cloud albedo doesn’t really contradict our understanding of greenhouse warming and doesn’t suggest that most of the warming over this period was due to changes in clouds.

Most of the warming is almost certainly due to the human emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. How clouds then respond to the subsequent warming then leads to most of the accumulated energy being due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation. If anything, as highlighted in the video in this [post (Can the ECS be less than 2 degrees? | …and Then There's Physics), this might actually be suggesting that equilibrium climate sensitivity is well above 2oC, rather than highlighting some major challenge to our understanding of greenhouse warming.

Links:

Outgoing longwave radiation – post I wrote explaining why most of the accumulated energy is due to increased absorded solar radiation.

Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation – paper by Trenberth and Fasullo.

Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2– paper by Donohue et al.

It is interesting that you keep producing all these papers that prove that Co2 has taken over Mother Nature. Yet, none of these papers are use by Climate Change lawyers to sue for damages. Please explain to me why that is.

There you go again, belligerently misrepresenting what I’ve said.

You’re f’n bananas. We live within a biosphere and the parameters of our global heat and moisture distribution engine, determine the conditions within that biosphere.

It’s as idiotic as saying oxygen, or my heart, has over taken my brain - they are an integral system, one can’t survive without the well being of the other. The extent of my brain’s health is very much dictated by the amount of oxygen my pumping blood is delivering to my brain.

CO2 happens to be the dominating atmosphere “insulation medium” of our Earth - period. It’s a major determining factor in how much heat is held within our Global Heat Engine (atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere, land masses). It works in combination with many factors, yet it dominates how much water our atmosphere holds, and even cloud formation, it’s certainly not the only factor (the way some malicious intellectual liars and science vandals are trying feed us.) just the overwhelmingly dominate one and the one we humans have been supercharging.

Funny the Lawyer Analogy.
The problem with you Mike Yohe is you refuse to learn from the evidence, you are the lawyer who couldn’t care less about fair play, or honesty, or integrity or learning - winning is all that matters and how much you need to misrepresent and slander matters not one wit with you. No scruples whatsoever. Winning and personal profiteering is all you are interested in. That’s why I’ve grown so hostile toward you, in case you were curious.

What’s humanist about this?

And substitute CO2 for economy in this.

Mike was almost interesting at one time, years ago. But now he says things like “taken over nature” and “climate change lawyers”. I don’t know how he pays his own bills or has managed to stay alive this long.

Why not take the time to read ATTP’s article and find out.
Humanism is about our human condition and human behavior, this is all about our behavior, and the need to manufacture scapegoats to coverup our own failings.

This sure wouldn’t fit under 'science" even if I was forced to add some climate science information.

So you can’t join up the dots. OK.

It seems to me, it’s you who’s incapable of connecting the dots.

The physical reality of climate science has been clear for generations, yet humanity’s (from top to bottom) willful self-imposed ignorance (dismissal, disregard, denial) guarantees future generations a living Hell on Earth and then, by and by, self-extinction, taking a good deal of what’s left of complex living organisms and Earth’s current biosphere with it.

If you can’t see your way to connecting those dots - pray tell us what is humanism all about then?

Here’s links to a couple cheat sheets to help get you up to speed:

Your move big guy.

My move stands. Make yours. Screeding others irrelevance isn’t that. Join up the dots.

What move was that?

Now you’re starting to resemble a troll.

Must be nice up there on your throne of superior cynicism.
Me, I’m down here in the reality of baby drool and occasional showers in partially digested milk, and you know, loving it - because this is the real world and a nice hot shower isn’t that far away.

PS. Heck seems you can’t even process the most fundamental lesson of all, the reality of our human consciousness and the Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide.

But rest assured, I’ll cogitate on your tossed Frisbee, perhaps when I’m back home with my little Maddy dog and wondering around our blessed homestead, the right words will come to me. Still, it’s so difficult trying to communicate with a cynic because they are never listening to begin with.

Make climate science denial a humanist issue or get off the pot.

It already is.
Stop trolling.

Again you fail to use words correctly and double down on that. You’ve got nothing to lose by walking naked.

Sniffing down your nose at me, is all you’ve done.

Do Philosophers ever take Evolution into account? - #50 by citizenschallengev4

Citizen can’t deal with the elephant in the room

Now trippy69 comes in for another hit,
But it’s powder snowball.
Another one liner that says exactly nothing.

I can’t deal with the elephant in the room, what are you talking about?
Bet you can’t explain it in a rational way.
Offer something I can actually respond to.

But that’s not the game, is it 69?