The evolution of a global warming skeptic

Interesting story of a climate professional who takes an honest look at the data. The important takeaway it that it is caused by humans.

Changing opinions on climate change, from a CNN Meteorologist - CNN.com

Sounds like the same ol' warmist fear mongering we've heard for years.

WCH said:

Sounds like the same ol' warmist fear mongering we've heard for years.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the same old denial that we've heard for years.

Rico Suave said:

Interesting story of a climate professional who takes an honest look at the data. The important takeaway it that it is caused by humans.

Changing opinions on climate change, from a CNN Meteorologist - CNN.com

Click to expand...

The skeptical question has never been, "does CO2 Cause warming?" but rather how much warming will CO2 cause?
Physics shows that doubling the CO2 level will cause roughly 1.2 C of warming, not many dispute this.
The IPCC says that because of amplified positive feedback, there will be additional warming of .3 to 3.3 C (to get to 1.5 to 4.5C from 1.2).
Most of the Scientific Skeptics fall into the enormous range of uncertainty.
Earlier IPCC reports had a best estimate of 3 C, but AR5 did not include a best estimate.
Many of the lead authors of that report wrote an article about their findings that did not make it into the report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
Their Best Estimate for ECS, based on observed data was 2 C.
This matters, because all of the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC are predicated on the CO2 sensitivity being higher, like between 3 and 4.5 C.
There also remains open the question if humans can actually achieve the first doubling of CO2, We have been
working hard on it for over a century and have managed to get about 43% of the way towards doubling the level.
The cheap easy oil has been found and extracted from here on out it will cost more and be harder to find and extract.

longview said:

The skeptical question has never been, "does CO2 Cause warming?" but rather how much warming will CO2 cause?
Physics shows that doubling the CO2 level will cause roughly 1.2 C of warming, not many dispute this.
The IPCC says that because of amplified positive feedback, there will be additional warming of .3 to 3.3 C (to get to 1.5 to 4.5C from 1.2).
Most of the Scientific Skeptics fall into the enormous range of uncertainty.
Earlier IPCC reports had a best estimate of 3 C, but AR5 did not include a best estimate.
Many of the lead authors of that report wrote an article about their findings that did not make it into the report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
Their Best Estimate for ECS, based on observed data was 2 C.
This matters, because all of the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC are predicated on the CO2 sensitivity being higher, like between 3 and 4.5 C.

Click to expand...

So the question is, what probability of "catastrophic" outcomes is acceptable?

(To clarify, because there is hyperbole and misinformation on both sides, "catastrophic" most likely doesn't mean mass extinctions, and certainly not for humanity; mid-range IPCC projections might result in significantly worse living standards - disease prevalance, flooding and drought, water and food shortage, etc. - for a few billion people, and thus perhaps tens of millions of excess deaths per year.)

If 3 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial causes something along the lines of these 'catastrophic' results, then it falls within the 17-83% confidence interval of your source based on 1970-2009 observations.

So is that okay?

There's a ~20% chance that it won't be that bad... so we don't need to worry?

Mithrae said:

So the question is, what probability of "catastrophic" outcomes is acceptable?

(To clarify, because there is hyperbole and misinformation on both sides, "catastrophic" most likely doesn't mean mass extinctions, and certainly not for humanity; mid-range IPCC projections might result in significantly worse living standards - disease prevalance, flooding and drought, water and food shortage, etc. - for a few billion people, and thus perhaps tens of millions of excess deaths per year.)

If 3 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial causes something along the lines of these 'catastrophic' results, then it falls within the 17-83% confidence interval of your source based on 1970-2009 observations.

So is that okay?

There's a ~20% chance that it won't be that bad... so we don't need to worry?

Click to expand...

Actually "the don't need to worry", should be more from worry doesn't help anything.
But since the supposed causes of all that disease, flooding, drought, water and food shortages are predicated
on the the ESC being on the higher end of the scale, If the ECS is lower, it is a good thing.
There are many reasons to be skeptical of the confidence exhibited by the IPCC.
The Warming is not occurring in the linear fashion used in the models.
The observed warming, has a severe seasonal and diurnal asymmetry, not predicted by the models.
(Hansen said in 1995 that T-Max would catch up to T-Min, the ration has remained the same.)
Many of the catastrophic predictions, were based on higher daytime highs, which have been almost unchanged.
(It is not that higher evening lows are benign, they are very different than if the warming were in daytime highs.)
And lastly, these predictions are based on our ability to continue to accelerate our use of hydrocarbon fuels,
to the point that we burn more in the next 60 years as in the previous 130 years.
There are still large oil reserves out there, but they are neither cheap or easy to access.

It turns out smart monkeys will be an evolutionary dead end, too bad we will take so many other species with us.

If it's any consolation we will have created the largest mass extinction event in the history of the planet.

Good job everyone !!!

longview said:

Actually "the don't need to worry", should be more from worry doesn't help anything.
But since the supposed causes of all that disease, flooding, drought, water and food shortages are predicated
on the the ESC being on the higher end of the scale, If the ECS is lower, it is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Sure, but it's an "if" with a lovely personality. (You wouldn't really call it a 'big' if, but can't ignore its size.)

A best estimate is not the same thing as a fact. Your points are well made, but nevertheless when it comes to substantial adverse consequences of global warming we're obviously not talking about one-in-a-million possibilities. How many people would knowingly and willingly venture an estimated 10 or 20% probability of a few million extra deaths per year further on down the road, so they can save a little on gas here and now?

Would you?


Much as I abhor alarmist hyperbole, I think most reasonable people would agree that in this case - where there's plenty of room for efficiency improvements, reductions in usage and promotion of alternatives - it's better to err a little on the side of caution where feasible, than to depend on wishful thinking... however small a wish that might be calculated as.

Mithrae said:

Sure, but it's an "if" with a lovely personality. (You wouldn't really call it a 'big' if, but can't ignore its size.)

A best estimate is not the same thing as a fact. Your points are well made, but nevertheless when it comes to substantial adverse consequences of global warming we're obviously not talking about one-in-a-million possibilities. How many people would knowingly and willingly venture an estimated 10 or 20% probability of a few million extra deaths per year further on down the road, so they can save a little on gas here and now?

Would you?

Click to expand...

Actually I think most people would. If this wasn't true you'd see most people riding their bicycles.

Mithrae said:

Sure, but it's an "if" with a lovely personality. (You wouldn't really call it a 'big' if, but can't ignore its size.)

A best estimate is not the same thing as a fact. Your points are well made, but nevertheless when it comes to substantial adverse consequences of global warming we're obviously not talking about one-in-a-million possibilities. How many people would knowingly and willingly venture an estimated 10 or 20% probability of a few million extra deaths per year further on down the road, so they can save a little on gas here and now?

Would you?

Click to expand...

The Big if cuts both ways, except that the low end is supported by the empirical data.
You are speaking of potential harm,
If the ECS is higher than the current data indicates, and
If the future warming response to CO2 is somehow different than the last century, and
if we can sustain continued growth of hydrocarbon fuel use.

What we know is that without fresh water, and a fuel as energy dense as oil based fuels,
We cannot possibly hope to maintain even half of our current population.
So when we evaluate engineering trade offs, it is best to value the sides properly.

This whole discussion, is because of peoples need to do something for a perceived problem.
We have an energy and fresh water problem, addressing them will solve any issues with CO2
as a side effect.